T^EOCEEDINGS 



artf0ri ^iile C0nhiiti0it. 



REPORTED PHONOGRAPHICAIiLY, 

By ANDREW J. GRAHAM 



NetD-gork: 

PUBLISHED BY THE COMMITTEE 

PARTRIDGE & BRITTAN. AGENTS, 
800 BROADWAY., 

1854. 



/ //// 



®fl tlje lltakr. ;jr<^ 



Those wlio were especially interested in the Hart 
FORD Bible Convention have doubtless been disap- 
pointed on account of the delay which has attended 
the publication of its proceedings. The circumstances 
which occasioned this disappointment may be very 
briefly stated. At the request of the several speakers, 
and by order of the Committee, the portions of the 
loport containing the speeches of several gentlemen 
^■vho reside at a great distance from Kew York were 
r.ont to thim for a careful revision, and in some in- 
btancco tx.ey were retained for a long time. This oc- 
casioned the repeated and protracted suspension of 
the work during the process of stereotyping, and must 
serve as an apology for its being so long delayed. The 
closing speech of Mr. Barker was not received at all, 
and, of course, is not embraced in the report as now 
given to the public. With this single exception, the 
present volume contains a faithful record of the Eeso- 
lutions. Speeches, etc., of the Convention. Whatever 
may be thought of the various views advocated on 



Till TO THE READEE. 

that occasion, this book sufficiently indicates tlie ability 
of the several speakers who took part in the discussion. 

As Truth can not suffer from any ordeal to which it 
can be subjected, and as error must inevitably suffer 
from every fair trial, it is believed that this book will 
perform a useful mission in the world. If popular 
theology is not triumphantly sustained in its pages, it 
is neither the fault of those who called the Convention, 
nor of those who fearlessly responded to that call, and 
made it the occasion of vindicating other and perhaps 
more rational views. 

The Committee desire to express their entire satis- 
faction with the very able and intelligent manner in 
which Mr. Andrew J. Graham, the reporter of these 
proceedings, discharged his laborious and difficult 
task. 



THE 




tf0rt ISiHe C0nhenti0n. 



FIRST DAY-MOENINe SESSION. 

Thursday^ June 2d. 

A RESPECTABLE audience having assembled in the Melodeon 
on the morning of the 2d of June, at 10 o'clock, the Conven- 
tion was called to order by Mr. A. J. Davis, when, on motion, 
Mr. William Green, Jr., of Hartford, was appointed president 
jpro tern. 

On motion, a committee of nomination was designated by 
the chairman, consisting of Messrs. A. J. Davis, Bartlett, and 
S. G. Finney ; which Committee made the following nomi- 
nations : for President, Joseph Barker ; for Vice-President, 
J. K. Ingalls ; for Secretary, A. O. Moore. These nomina- 
tions were confirmed by the Convention. 

The President, Mr. Joseph Barker, then arose and said : 
I was not in the least anticipating a call to the chair ; but 
as I have been called, I will take the place assigned me and 
proceed in the discharge of my duties. This Convention has 
assembled in consequence of a call, a copy of which I hold 
in my hands. 

TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE DISCUSSION. 

The undersigned, solicitous for the advancement of the cause of 
Truth and Humanity, hereby invite all who are friendly to free dis- 
cussion, to attend a Convention to be held at Hartford, Cojvn., on 
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th of June 

1* 



10 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

next, for the purpose of freely and fully canvassing the Origin, Au- 
thority, AND Influence of the Jewish and Christian Scrip- 
tures. 

This invitation is not given to any particular class of Philosophers, 
Theologians, or Thinkers, but is in good faith extended to all who feel 
an interest in the examination of the questions above stated. There 
are many who believe that a supernatural Revelation has been given 
to man ; many others who deny this, and a large number who are 
afflicted with perplexing doubts — trembling between the silent skepti- 
cism of their reason and the fear of absolute denial. In issuing a 
call for a Convention, we have in view the correction of error, by 
which party soever entertained, and the relief of those who stand be- 
tween doubt and fear, from their embarrassing position. 

Some may have no doubt that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures 
have subserved an important end, and yet believe that their mission is 
nearly completed and must be superseded by a new dispensation ; some 
may believe that their influence has been prejudicial in every respect, 
and that they have been a curse rather than a blessing to mankind ; 
others may believe them a perfect record of the Divine will to man — 
good in the past and for all time to come ; and others still may deny 
the plenary inspiration of the Bible, discarding much of the Old Testa- 
ment, and receiving most or all of the New. Still, such diversity of 
opinion, instead of prejudicing the interest and good results which 
ought to attend such a Convention, will rather tend to increase its in- 
terest and enhance its value to the cause of truth. 

Doubtless a free interchange of thought is the best mode of exciting 
inquiry and of arriving at the truth. 

" He who has a truth and keeps it, 
Keeps what not to him belongs, 
But performs a selfish action, 
And his fellow-mortal wrongs." 

We invite, therefore, all who feel an interest in this question, with- 
out distinction of sex, color, sect, or party, to come together, that we 
may sit down like brethren in a communion before the altar of intel- 
lectual and spiritual freedom. 

Individuals whose names are marked thus,* are expected to take 
active parts, pro or con, in the deliberations of the Convention. The 
Convention will be addressed by earnest and able minds from Ohio, 
New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other States. The Con- 
Tention will commence at 10 o'clock, a.m., at the Melodeon, on Main 
Street. The Discussion will be opened by a discourse from A. J. Davis. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 



11 



Measures have been taken to secure the services of a good pho- 
nographic reporter, to make a faithful record of the proceedings of the 
Convention. It is designed, as far as possible and agreeable to the in- 
dividuals, to obtain a full and impartial report of the speeches made 
during the discussion, pro or con, for publication in a book form ; and 
in order to prevent mistakes, misapprehension, or omissions in these 
reports, it is proposed to submit each speech to its author for revision 
before any authentic publication shall be attempted. 



*Andrew Jackson Davis, Hartford. 

*William Lloyd Garrison, Boston. 

*Ecv. James Richardson, Jr., Dedham. 

*Jo3eph Barker, Millwood, Ohio. 

*Henry C, Wricht, Boston. 

*Prof. S. B. Brittan, New York. 

*Eev. llussell B. Ambler, " 

*Selden J. Finney, Amherst, Ohio. 

*Eev. John T. Sargeant, Boston. 

*Rev. Charles Hammond, Eochester. 

*"W. M. Payne, Hartford, Conn. 

♦Stephen S. Foster, Worcester, Mass. 

*Abby KeHy Foster, 

Joseph Barker, Jr., Millwood, Ohio. 

Mary Jane Barker, " 

George E. Barker, " 

Catharine D. W. Davis, Hartford. 

William Green, Jr., " 

Augustus 0. Moore, " 

Nina Moore, " 

Maria H. Gillmore, " 

Dr. J. M. Eiggs, « 

W. P. Donaldson, " 

B. F. Clarke, M.D., Philadelphia. 

Joseph S. Longshore, M.D. " 

S. Pancoast, M.D. " 

Aaron Comfort, " 

Isaac Eehn, York, Penn. 

Edward Jones, Eochester. 

Isaac Post, " 

Amy Post, " 

Lewis Burtis, Eochester. 

Sarah Burtis, " 

E. F. Walcutt, Boston. 

Christian Sharp, Hartford. 

A. W. Fox, " 

J. H. Smith, " 

E. K. Stoddard, " 

Mary B. Stoddard, " 

Ella M. Watson, " 

Cath. S. Loomis, " 



F. M. Wallace, Hartford. 

L. M. Collins, " 

Semantha Mettler, " 

J. E. Mettler, " 

Harmon Eowley, Chicopee Falls. 

D. M. Covej-, Southville, N. Y. 
Augustus H. Gilbert, Philadelphia. 
Jarvis Hall, Hartford. 

J. Silas Brown, " 

T. W. Chapman, " 

Eoswell Parker, " 

Benjamin Lawrence, West Winsted, Conn. 

Pierpont C. Turner, " 

Elisha M. Turner, " 

Warren E. Hale, " 

Benj. Maston Watson, Esq., Plym'th, Mass. 

J. F. Laning, Philadelphia. 

Willard Griffin, West Granby, Conn. 

J. H. Eobinson, Boston. 

A Bingham, " 

P. B. Packhard, « 

Samuel Nichols, " 

Miss C. Spencer, Bloomfleld, Conn. 

Henry D. Eobinson, Hartford. 

Hiram Eogers, " 

Samuel D. Smith, " 

Harriet Bailey, " 

M. S. Barber, " 

F. A. Burbank, " 

William Banker, " 

E. B. Parish, " 
Luther Bartlett, " 
W. E. Woods, « 
Thomas Beach, " 
Keziah Beach, " 

Peter Osbourne, Morrisville, Penn. 
Augustus Merrick, Concord, Mass. 
Edwin Harmer, " 

N. H. Dillingham, M.D., " 
Mary P Barnes, Hartford. 
Albert Lyde«ker, " 



12 



PKOCEEDINGS OF THE 



Hamlet E. Barber, Hartford. 

A. J. Tourtellotte, " 

Harvey Lull, " 

Almy Elliot, " 

J. Seymour Brown, " 

Louisa Fox, " 

Francis Doby, " 

Warren Callender, " 

Elliot Rogers, " 

Valentine Nicholson, Harveysburg, Ohio. 

Jane F. Nicholson, " 

William HiUis, " 

Mary Ann Hillis, " 

Dr. J. W. Johnson, Hartford, Conn. m 

Dr. Almanzon Clarke, Eochester, N. Y, 

Henry Quinby, Mendon, N. Y. 

William Coates, Boonton, N. J. 

John A. Cornelison, Hartford. 

Amos Whitney, " 

Harvey Wilson, " 

H. N. Slocomb, " 

Eli Nichols, Walhonding, Ohio. 

Anthony Gabrial, East Hartford. 

Eansom H. Olmsted, " 

P. A. Cattanio, New York. 

P. E. Bland, St. Louis, Mo. 

A. Frey, West Winsted, Conn. 

Kodney Moore, " 

H. C. Whiting, " 

H. W, Whiting, " 

Janette Coates, Boonton, N. J. 

George M. Ely, " 

James Freeland, " 

John Grimes, M.D., " 

James S. Norris, " 

Lucy 8. Ely, « 

EUen Ely, « 

John Wootton, " 

Philip Wootton, « 

Hannah Wootton, " 

George W. Steele, Amherst, Ohio. 

Isaac C. Steele, " 

Smith Steele, « 



Ezur Dennis, Boonton, N. J. 
Eliza Dennis, •' 

Stephen Grimes, " 
Phoeba E. Grimes, " 
Marcus Everts, " 
Lorenzo Hint, Stoughton, Mass. 

B. J. Butts, Hopedale, Mass. 
David B. Hamilton, Hartford, Conn. 
Mrs. Mary A. Hamilton, " 
Samuel Davis, Mendham, N. J. 

W. B. Johnson, Hartford. 

H. F. Johnson, " 

Hamlet F. Eoberls, East Hartford. 

Louisa E. Roberts, Hartford. 

James A. Bill, Selma, Ala. 

Emetine A. Smith, Hudson, N. Y. 

Eliza Brown, Hartford. 

Delia Knox, " 

Eev. Robert Grey, Modem Times, L. L 

Mrs. Robert Grey, " 

Joseph H. Canningbam,Clianningv'e,N.Y. 

Jane Cunningham, " 

J. S. Dow, Hartford, Conn. 

E. Chadwick, " 

William B. Dyer, Bridgeport, Conn. 

Solomon Purdy, Middlebury. 

John C. Steele, Amherst, Ohio. 

Horace S. Steele, " 

Edgar W. Steele, " 

Henry Stagg, St. Louis, Mo. 

L. P. Britt, M D., " 

Mrs. L. P. Britt, " 

C. P. Morse, « 
A. Miltenberger, " 
Charles Levy, " 
Thom, Fairbridge, " 
WiUiam A. Lee, " 

John 0. Wattles, West Point, Ind. 

L. A. Hine, Floral BluflF, Ohio. 

H. W. Pinney, West Winsted, Conn. 

Jesse Dutton, " 

Luman White, " 

Aaron Burbank, " 



Having read the call, he remarked : 

I feel that the results of this Convention will be beneficial ; 
but I shall not at present make any remarks upon the call, 
but call upon Mr. Andrew J. Davis to open this Convention 
by an address. 



HARTFORD BIBLE C ON V EK TI ON. 13 

The following Resolution was then offered : 

Resolved, That each mind, by virtue of its endowments, rights, and 
liberties, should " prove all things, and hold fast that which is good," 

Mr. Davis then arose and said : 

The course of Nature is marked by vast and mighty 
changes. In the lower departments of the physical world, 
one set of circumstances continue till their mission is com- 
pleted, when they gradually expire, and from their ashes a 
new order of things is born into existence. Every great 
general improvement in the physical aspect of the globe — 
every magnificent alteration in the relation of things — is 
preceded, accompanied, and succeeded by some grand an- 
nouncement and startling demonstration. The formation of 
mountains — those glorious symbols of everlasting truth — 
was accomplished by the most terrible convulsions. From 
center to circumference the terrestrial hall is shaken — portions 
fall while others rise — the earth trembles and quakes — and so 
are made the lofty mount, the beautiful valley, the undulating 
landscape, and the ocean's bed. But observe : terrible changes 
are never terrible in fact ! Every alteration in Nature's do- 
main is invariably succeeded by better circumstances. It is 
only man's short-sightedness which hinders his perception of 
the future good. 

So in the religious world. There are circumstances — con- 
ditions of mind and organization — which demand a change. 
And he who Interrogates the page of progress on this point, 
receives back the answer that, in the religious world great and 
startling alterations have from age to age occurred — disturb- 
ing, for the time being, the body of mankind with paroxysms 
of dreadful apprehension. But tViese changes are inevitable — 
indispensable, in fact, to the development and education of 
the world. The mounts of truth, the vast territories of re- 
form, are thrown up out of dogmatism and despotism by 
stupendous efforts. And the genius of history, with pen and 



14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

ink ready, stands ever near to record the causes and conse- 
quences of the alteration ; and so posterity and subsequent 
generations are enlightened. And the world at last learns 
the lesson, that Truth, like the ocean's tide, is ever onward 
and resistless. 

There is nothing strong enough to stay the immutable 
workings of this principle of change — this law of alternation — 
this method of the universe! Kings, priests, and tyrants 
utter heart-rending groans, and remonstrate bitterly at the 
awfulness and majesty of Change. Wherefore ? Because 
they are so delightfully circumstanced in external things, and 
so strongly intrenched in the compelled ignorance and con- 
sequent servitude of the masses ! But, thanks to the Su- 
preme Power of the universe, the law of reform works 
unchangeably onward, and the dreaded hour at last arrives. 
The voice of justice^ so long silenced by prevailing powers, 
is heard thundering o'er palace and cathedi-al ; and all time- 
sanctified institutions are invaded by the disciples of reason, 
notwithstanding the lamentations of their conservative pro- 
prietors and dreamy inhabitants ! 

The object of this Convention is to explore and investigate 
the origin, authority, and injiuence of the Old and New 
Testaments . 

What a question for the nineteenth century ! In the 
opinion of many well-meaning persons, a convention, with 
such an object in view, can be nothing less than an act of 
supererogation. They suppose the origin, authority, and 
influence of the Testaments to be as well established as the 
sun in the heavens. This superstition is the chief in Christen- 
dom. Unaided by the revelations of science, how could the 
early inhabitants give us a Bible without mythology and 
errors 1 Without a philosophical and historical understanding 
of the origin of the Bible, how can we estimate its authority ? 
Without a knowledge of the cause and extent of its authority, 
how can we ascertain the merits and demerits of its influence ? 



HARTFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 15 

These, surely, are the questions for this age, because this age, 
more than any other, possesses the requisite information to 
answer them. The miracle of Joshua could not be answered 
until the immutable laws of planetary harmony were dis- 
covered ; the cosmological theory of Moses could not be 
answered until the science of geology was developed. As 
these sciences have for the first time gained a footing among 
the people, even so for the first time are the people prepared 
for the examination of the questions before this Convention. 

In certain prudential minds are dwelling diverse doubts 
respecting the utility of conventions — either as instruments 
of good or exponents of truth — more especially when called 
to the consideration of sacred themes. Most persons are 
educated to regard religion as too holy a matter for debate. 
I think that any thing is too holy for an angry debate — but 
nothing is too sacred for calm investigation ! 

As eveVy fountain declares the impurities and excellences 
of it3 own waters, so, in this Convention, where individuality 
of character is particularly encouraged, must each speaker 
stand, in presence of his own conscience, responsible for the 
utterances of his nature. This is free discussion. And my 
recommendation to each one is, Be watchful, lest, in the exer- 
cise of this blessed privilege, you get too much inspiration 
through combativeness instead of conscientiousness ; and in 
your anxiety to enforce a proposition, be careful lest your 
thoughts fall from the magnificent posture of principles to the 
common error of personalities. The Convention, if conducted 
with these simple precautions, can not fail of doing good. 

I have said that no matter was too sacred for calm debate. 
The plea that religion is too delicate and divine for analytical 
examination, is, in my estimation, the excuse of unsound 
and timid minds. My eternal motto is, " Any theory , 
hypothesis, ^phiJQgPPV? sect, cre^d;-'grTnsrilution that fears 
investigati on, openly manifests its own error.. 

We do not plant ourselves gladiatorially in the arena as 



16 



PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 



% 



mere antagonists and combatants — ^not as mere destruction 
ists, extremists, and infidels — but, in fraternal love, as the 
disciples of God-given reason, as the uncompromising advo- 
cates for universal liberty of body and soul, as construction- 
ists and lovers of moderation and temperance in all things, 
and as unflinching believers in the existence and universality 
of Eternal Truth ; thus armed and equipped we come forth, 
and call upon every individual to bring his best thoughts on 
the points at issue before this Convention. The plea that 
religion is too sacred for public discussion appears trans- 
cendently absurd^ when it is recollected that this subject is 
publicly debated in every pulpit in Christendom ! But there 
is no freedom in it! Every stamp of mind is engaged in 
discoursing religion to the people. But it is all priestly and 
dogmatic. It is done in the pulpit — a consecrated battlement, 
where laymen, no matter how talented and accomplished, are 
not allowed to enter ! But we come to the freeman's pulpit — 
to the public rostrum — and invite hither the victims of the 
other mode of discussing religion. We urge them to prefer 
their charges, state their grievances, put their objections ; and 
the candid devotees of whatever creed are hereby warned to 
appear before a public tribunal, and defend their theology, and 
their interpretations of it, against the aspersions of disaffected 
minds. 

Our course may be condemned, but, let it be duly remember- 
ed, that the causes for calling this Convention would not exist if 
Christendom were blessed with Free Pulpits ! By free pulpits 
I mean -churches where the reformerj the tempe rance man , 
the anti-slavery man, and the man of science, can go and lay 
his principles before the people — churches where conscience's 
kindly treated, where the law of individual libertyjs_wor- 
shiped. 

Instead of this — which would do away with all necessity 
for Bible Conventions, and with all independent meetings for 
free discussion — the minister is encouraged in his efforts to 



HAETFOED BIBLE COKTE JTTION. It 

denounce and defame any new movement with his accustomed 
dogmatism, encouraged to prejudice the people against a 
matter of which they know absolutely nothing ; and then, like 
the despotism of the Austrian government, the pulpit official 
closes up as far as possible every avenue to the presentation 
of a defense from the parties aggrieved. And what effects 
do these religious circumstances develop? I will show you. 
The people, conscious of having much truth, are driven at 
last from the pulpit of dogmatic theology to the platform of 
free discussion. And the consequence will be, that the public 
rostrum will supersede the pulpit in value and for purposes of 
instruction. Yea, our course may be condemned, as were the 
developments of Galileo ; but I tell you that this Convention 
is but the effect of a set of circumstances in the religious 
world, which even one-sided and bigoted minds must appre- 
hend and confess. When the cause is removed, the effect 
will disappear. 

Most persons, I have said, are educated to regard religion 
as being too holy for public debate. But what is education ? 
It is an implantation of certain symbols of thought, trans- 
ferred from one mind to another, as the artist paints on 
canvas. Thoughts are not given in this way, but the sym- 
bols or forms of expression into which the internal forces of 
the mind flow up. All the liquid elements of mentality are 
formed and fashioned in accordance with the symbols placed 
upon the mind by the hand of the master — just as water 
takes the exact shape of the vessel into which it is poured ! 

Is education, then, a sacred and reliable authority *? How 
do you know whether the writer of the Shorter Catechism was 
correct or incorrect % How do you know whether the religion 
of Moses was right or wrong 1 God speaks in the sanctuary 
of the living soul! He writes his religion upon the ever- 
lasting hills. It is simple, grand, and universal. It never 
changes. But do symbols remain unchanged'? The Old 
Testament idea of justice is our idea of revenge. The old 



18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

conceptions of God will suit the modern devil. "What though 
the Hindoo be educated to believe certain religious thoughts, 
is he therefore to be left undisturbed? Do not Christians 
send missionaries to place Christian symbols upon the hea- 
then's mind? Shall we not, therefore, as Nature's mission- 
aries, place Nature's symbols upon the Christian mind? 
The heathen loves his idols which man made ; the Christian 
loves his Bible which man made ; but we love Nature — 
physical, spiritual and celestial — which God made, and sanc- 
tifies with the undying glories of his Spirit. 

Let us discriminate between religion and the symbols or 
vessels which are supposed to contain it. 

If we have wrong symbols, the shape of our religion will 
be also wrong ! Man outgrows the clothing of his youth ; 
may he not also outgrow the symbols of his religion? The 
essence of all religions may be immaculate, which I fully 
believe ; but if the symbols containing it be deformed, does 
it not follow that the shape of the religion would be corre- 
spondingly defective ? 

If you admit the probability of this proposition — which I 
think you can not escape — then, let me ask, how can you 
inform your own mind whether or not your religion be in the 
proper shape, unless you make the subject a theme for calm 
investigation? "Agitation of thought is the beginning of 
wisdom." But you fear to investigate ! Any thing which 
fears investigation openly manifests its own error. Do you 
fear to investigate religion lest you be led away from the 
smile of Heaven? What a gromidless, ignorant fear! Is 
not heaven illimitable as the universe? Is not God every- 
where present? Can you be led away from a Divine Spirit 
who is " before all things, and in whom all things consists ?" 
Do you fear that, by investigation, you shall cease to be re- 
ligious ? Nay, nay, fear not ; for true religion is the life of 
the soul ! The love of worship is the strongest love, although 
in different natures it has different modes of manifestation. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 19 

Religion and human existence are one and the same in 
essence. 

Suppose the Emperor Constantine saw fit to call a con- 
vention of bishops and laymen for religious purposes ; and 
suppose he and they, after much confusion and dispute, de- 
cided upon what books should be regarded as' "the Word of 
God," and what books should be rejected as spurious gospel — 
thus, by virtue of external authority, manufacturing for the 
whole world, and for all subsequent generations, religious 
symbols through which the human soul commonly thinks of 
divine and spiritual things — suppose all this to be historically 
true (which it is) — let me ask : Are we not as fully author- 
ized, by an example or precedent so conspicuously set, to 
call another convention, to consider whether any emperor or 
bench of bishops have a peculiar right to determine the shape 
and pattern of our religion % Religion was not too sacred for 
investigation ther. ! Why should it be too sacred now 1 

Still you question the utility of conventions for this pur 
pose ! You think free discussions do not develop truth — that 
people are too combative and impetuous — that the cords of 
bigotry are tightened by the fierceness of opposition to it. 
But my reply is. That conventions are useful only as plows 
are good for the soil — they turn up new ground^ break away 
poisonous weeds, and demolish old stumps, for the subsequent 
planting of good seed. 

Free interchange of thought and feeling is the only way to 
wisdom. Man's mind is developed by contact — is educated 
by the individualization and comparison of facts. Mind 
must first discover facts ; then those facts must be by them- 
selves examined ; then they must bo placed in contrast and 
juxtaposition ; and then, from the latter arrangement, which 
comes within the jurisdiction of every rational being, there 
flow out certain definite conclusions: and these conclusions, 
the mind, by virtue of its constitution, is constrained to ac- 
cept. Faith is the subject of volition. Like all organized 



20 PROCEEDINGS OP THE 

bodies, human minds yield to the strongest pressure. Faith 
comes from evidence. " He that believeth not shall be damn- 
ed." Should a man be damned for a thing which he can not 
help? When properly applied to our faculties, the strongest 
proof makes the deepest impression. 

According to this certain law, let me ask : How can a mind 
understand religion without investigation. A man may be a 
devoted frequenter of some particular church — may have 
listened with delight and edification to the exposition of a 
certain form of religious belief — but, having never compared 
one creed with another, what does he know of the foundation 
of popular theology? 

He may read all the publications of his denomination — 
may know the Bible by heart — what does he know of real 
mental liberty 1 

I tell you that such a man is a thorough bigot ! Should a 
reformer appear, this religious man, with the contents of the 
Bible at his tongue's end, begins his opposition by quoting 
texts. But as to whether those texts rest upon any divine 
-authority or not, he never stops to inquire, nor any one else. 
If the Bible says so, that is all sufficient ! Now what can 
such a mind know of impartiality and open-mindedness ? 
What knows he of the glorious matrimonial principles where- 
by the universe was built ; by which men and globes alike 
are regulated ? 

Concerning these things he is ignorant — for he would not 
be " wise above what is written." 

And so, how profoundly does he abhor and condemn a 
Bible Convention ! He is sure no good can come of it ! In 
his opinion, it is as much as to affirm, that the Bible is some- 
where unsound — that it is not what great scholars and emi- 
nent philosophers have claimed for it. 

Therefore the prudential bigot thinks and asserts that the 
only effect of a Bible Convention can be to lead weak-mind- 
ed (!) persons into skepticism, and strengthen the disbelief al- 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 21 

ready existing. In plain English, it is dangerous to examine 
a subject, which, from repeated experimentSj is found not tri- 
umphantly to survive the ordeal of a fair investigation ! 

Any thing which fears investigation openly manifests its 
own error. 

Of all modern suppositions, I think, the idea that infidel 
arguments have all been fairly answered by Christian scholars, 
is the most prominent. There is much pretension and con- 
strained composure based upon the efforts of Christian writers. 
All infidel objections, it is solemnly asserted, have been ex- 
posed and exploded over and over again. And churchmen 
say, that all that can now be adduced is but a rehash of old 
infidel arguments, which Dr. David Nelson and Leslie have 
completely refuted and overthrown. 

I do not take issue on this point now, because I wish first 
to persuade you that we did not call this Convention for any 
such low groveling purpose. 

We are actuated by no desire to spread skepticism on re- 
ligious subjects — nay, we pray and work for theologic liberty, 
for universal peace, for human love and brotherhood, for the 
kingdom of heaven on earth — hence we design to do all we 
can to prevent skepticism in those principles which God de- 
clares to be the true religion ! 

With this Convention (or another which it may suggest) 
we mean to drive the plow deep into the soil of popular 
theology and into the origin of those texts which priests hurl 
at the movements of every true reformer. 

It is my convicti on^ that the more a man knows^ the less h0~~ 
believes, ' ^" "~"" 



TEemore we learn of the natural, the less we believe of the 
supernatural. Or, in other words, a wise man is seldom 
troubled with imagination — the reverse is also true. The 
firmest believer in the supernatural is one who knows but lit- 
tle concerning the physical laws of the world we live in. And 
as this vast system of natural existence is beginning to be 






22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

better understood, it is easier to investigate and decide upon 
the asserted supernatural and miraculous, and ascertain what 
is and what is not entitled to the dignified title of " plenary 
inspiration. 

Since the development of the sciences of astronomy, geol- 
ogy, chemistry, etc., it can not be denied, I think, that there 
has been established more doubt than was ever before enter- 
tained respecting the supernatural origin and supernal author- 
ity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Prof. Hitchcock, 
Prof. Silliman, and several Englishmen of scientific attain- 
ment, have labored to rescue the Mosaic and dependent 
records from the vortex of utter repudiation. But what have 
they accomplished 1 They have merely confirmed and con- 
solidated the bigotry and superstition of persons already in 
the Church. 

What further % They have merely convinced individuals 
on the outer courts of the sanctuary, that such minds are 
anxious to nurse and foster their reputation as orthodox 
authors — while their productions prove to the independent 
thinker, that they acknowledge but very little about the in- 
trinsic weaknesses of the theology for which they so earnestly 
and solemnly plead. 

Hugh Miller, author of " Foot-prints of the Creator," who 
has written as good a plea in behalf of his theologic faith as 
any Churchman could, is fully conscious of the ignorance of 
the clergy. He says,* " The clergy as a class, suffer themselves 
to linger far in the rear of an intelligent atid accomplished laity ^ 
a full age behind the requirements of the time. Let them not 
shut their eyes to the danger which is obviously coming ! 
The battle of the evidences (of Christianity) will have as cer- 
tainly to be fought on the fields of physical science as it was 
contested in the last age on that of the metaphysics. And 
on this new arena the combatants will have to employ new 

* Page 45, American edition. 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 23 

weapons^ which it will be the privilege of the challenger to 
choose. The old, opposed to these, would prove of but little 
avail." Hence the ai-guments of Nelson, or Leslie, or Paley, 
or Watson can have no weight in the stupendous battle about 
to be fought between despotism and liberty. 

Notwithstanding this acknowledgment of ignorance on the 
part of the clergy as a class, there are persons who still 
regard them as masters in the theologic school — able to 
meet any objection which Astronomy, Geology, or Chemistry 
can urge against the authority of their system. Of course it 
is very proper to suppose, that the clergy are the possessors 
of the requisite evidence to prove the origin and sanctity of 
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Now we bring, not the 
objections of a party, but the developments of the nineteenth 
century, to bear upon the questions under discussion. We 
are not anti- Christ ; but we are anti-bigotry, anti-slavery, 
an ti- superstition, anti-supernatural, anti-every thing which mili- 
tates in any manner against the development of human love 
and brotherhood. And we are ^or I am at least) opposed to 
any thing in or out of the Bible which prevents or retards the 
normal growth of this religion. Greek, Hebrew, and Latin 
terms, however classic and high-sounding — a mere battle of 
texts — can have no possible weight in settling questions 
which involve the origin and veracity of a record which is 
already in the English language, and recommended by the 
American Bible Society, in its present translation, as being 
the infallible Word of God. The clergy should feel grateful 
to us for taking the trouble to show them the battle-field of 
this century ! 

Religion, I repeat, is not too sacred for public debate ; for 
religion pertains to the universal conscience of man ; it is the 
great corner-stone of the temple of human brotherhood, and a 
Convention is the instrument most calculated to chisel it out 
of life's foundations. This religion is not to be found between 
the lids of any book. It is in the soul of human kind. It 



M PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

needs development. Conventions, conducted with magnan- 
imity and virtue of purpose, will accomplish much good 
toward the unfolding of universal principles. Flowers can 
grow with strength and beauty only when well circumstanced. 
Conventions are valuable, not merely for the facts, truths, and 
arguments they spread before the minds of the people, but 
particularly for the freedom of sentiments, and the examples 
of courageous utterance in the presence of persons accustomed 
to pulpit monopoly. When the human mind is once freed, 
and the philosophy of conscientious independence is presented 
to it, it spreads its wings and soars to summits of thought 
before unknown. Eeason, on the wings of faith in justice, is 
a bird of paradise. Its flight is outward, inward, onward, up- 
ward ! And the material and spiritual universes are opened 
to these flights of freedom. The eagle is reason's symbol, but 
the serpent is the hideous type of slavery ! 

We contend not for partyism, but for the world. Inde- 
pendence of soul, based on' integrity of motive, is now de- 
manded. Let us teach — '' 



and let us — 



" Each man to think himself an act of God, 
His mind a thought, his life a breath of God ; 



' Bid each try, by great fhougTiU and good deeds, 
To show the most of heaven he hath in him." 



We have no ambition to excel our neighbor in argument, 
for a fluent tongue can give to total errors the semblance of 
truth ; and although the hearer might not be gifted in reply, 
his soul would surely remonstrate and condemn in silence. 
Nay, our only ambition is to be true men and true women ; 
to show the most of heaven we have in us ! In argument we 
require facts as signs to go by, and principles as truths whereby 
to interpret them. No anger, no uncharitableness ; love only, 
and independence of soul enough to declare a living truth, even 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 25 

though the " heavens'*^ of popular systems fall, and the '* stars''* 
in the pulpits be blotted out. 

" Eead the face of Nature, that God-written Bible, 
Which all mankind may study and explore, 
"Which none can wrest, interpolate, or libel its loving lore 
Here learn we that our Maker, whose affection 
Knows no distinction, suffers no recall. 
Sheds its impartial favor and protection 
Alike on all." 

The question of the origin of the Testaments is debatable 
from several stand-points ; arguments flow in from sources 
hitherto unsuspected. 

Archaeological evidences are numerous. Antiquity is full 
of facts bearing directly on this point ; but the difficulty of 
demonstrating the validity of historical records drives the in- 
vestigator necessarily on the ground of internal evidence and 
inference. The proposition stands thus : Can a book have a 
divine origin which is self-contradictory, opposed to intuition 
and to fact 1 Can an unchangeable God, full of harmony and 
divinity, be the author of a book which contains inconsisten- 
cies, examples of revenge and repentance, and inculcates an- 
tagonistic rules for human life ? One class of minds deny the 
existence of such inconsistencies and antagonisms between 
the lids of King James' Bible, while another class affirms 
them as demonstrable. If they do not exist, we infer the 
divine origin ; if they do exist, we infer that the book is of 
human imperfection. Here is a subject for your investigation. 
Again, the authority of the Bible may be contemplated from 
several points : authority may be argued from the ground of 
utility — that it is the best religion in the world — that it satis- 
fies the heart and the head — that it restrains vice and deifies 
virtue — that, without the Bible, we would be without a reve- 
lation of God's will, be ignorant of the scheme of redemption, 
and that our civilization is dependent upon the principles 
thereby inculcated. But it may be argued that civilization 
is not & child of Christianity — that its authority leads to 

2 



26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

bigotry and intolerance — that it is no better than the best part 
of any other religioii — that it does not satisfy but stultifies 
the heart, and confounds the head — that from the Bible we 
get our worst ideas of God — that the scheme of salvation 
does not save the world from sin, slavery, and discords — that 
its authority is good only so far as its contents stand the test 
of conscience and of scientific principles. 

One class affirms, another denies. And this is the time for a 
thorough analyzation of these respective positions. " Nothing 
extenuate or aught set down in malice." 

Again, the influence of the Bible may be affirmed to be 
mild righteousness — that thousands are joyous under the 
blessings of the Christian religion, while the heathen, and 
nations without this system, are buried in ignorance and 
degradation. I think this point calls for special treatment 
from all minds. The question is, " Is the difference between 
heathen and Christian nations attributable to the influence of 
the Old and New Testaments upon the latter 1" From this 
question all other questions under this head radiate ; there- 
fore, here is a subject for your investigation. 

Brethren, let us free ourselves from the sectarianism of the 
churches, from the mythology of the Bible, from the slavery 
of fear, from the chains of superstition ! Reason is the sover- 
eign of the soul, and truth is the sovereign of reason. Prove 
all things, hold fast to that which is good. 

A gentleman whose name was not ascertained then rose in 
the back part of the house, and said that he desired a com- 
mittee to be appointed to secure the printing of Mr. Davis' 
speech just as it was written. It was a most blasphemous 
document — a tissue of falsehood. If printed, he would pledge 
himself to see it answered. A committee should be appointed 
that it should be printed just as it was delivered. He be- 
lieved that if left in Mr. Davis' hands, he would alter it to 
make it a little more readable 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 27 

Mr. Davis replied that if he could be convinced that the 
gentleman would not alter it, he (Mr. Davis) would allow 
him to take the speech himself and get it published. 

The Gentleman answered that he would do so, and break 
up their conspiracy. The persons who had been the leaders 
in this Convention were a junto, whose object was to destroy 
every thing that was worth preserving in our institutions. 

The Chairman remarked that it certainly was not argument 
to charge gentlemen with being engaged in a conspiracy — to 
speak of them as a junto. It would be well to express opin- 
ions with more moderation. 

The Gentleman then said that he hoped that the citizens 
would have a committee appointed for the printing of that 
document [Mr. Davis' speech]. 

Chairman. — I think our friend in the back of the house is 
proceeding rather hastily. I do not know what right any 
party has to demand that document. I hope we shall proceed 
in some sort of order, so that we may have a proper report 
of all our proceedings. 

The Gentleman. — I may be in the rear of the house, but I 
am in the front of the argument. I assert that if you come 
to seduce the affections of the people from their government, 
and to introduce anarchy and confusion, which I undertake to 
show, with that tirade of hellish stuff, you must submit your 
ease to the citizens. I undertake to show that it is an attack 
upon all our institutions that are worth living for — it is a 
blasphemy. 

Mr. B. F. Martin, in the midst of the boisterous uproar 
produced by the person whom, on account of being ignorant 
of his name, we have been obliged to call a gentleman, arose, 
and made a number of excellent remarks, not of any particu- 
lar service to the noisy gentleman and his clique ; yet at the 
conclusion of Mr. Martin's remarks, the Gentleman said that 
he demanded that a committee should be appointed to pro- 
cure a copy of the speech of Mr. Davis, so that the Davisites, 



28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

"^and Finney ites, and Bedlamites might be exposed to the world 
in the attempts to uproot the foundations of society ; where- 
upon 

Mr. Wright said : I hope that no man will listen to black- 
guards for a moment. It is unworthy our own character to 
do so. (Hear, hear.) Let us proceed in discussing the sub- 
ject that is before us ; and if any person professing to be a 
Christian comes into this Convention and gives such a speci- 
men as we have had to-day, certain I am that there is no hon- 
est one in this house that will not scorn Christianity. I am 
sorry to see any person professing respect for the Bible come 
here to taunt, to ridicule, to talk as a certain man has talked 
in this audience ; and I say that I hope that he will learn to his 
own advantage to remember that loving his neighbor as himself, 
he can not come here and show such a passion as that gentle- 
man has shown ; for certainly he seems to me to be in a pas- 
sion. I hope, sir, that in this Convention we shall adopt rules 
by which we can regulate our discussions. To the friends 
present I wish to say that we adopt a principle of universal 
freedom of thought and freedom of speech. For myself, sir, 
I am here to give utterance to my owji soul, and not to the 
soul of any other man. My tongue shall utter my thoughts, 
or nothing. I am not here to represent any human being but 
myself, and I shall speak my own thoughts, in my own way. 
I hope every other human being present will do the same ; 
and I do hope that we shall not only learn freedom of speech 
and thought, but freedom to hear. There is such a thing as a 
right to speak and a right to hear. It seems to me that we 
are bound to hear every man — any man who utters his 
thoughts lovingly and kindly to us, no matter whether he 
agrees with us or not ; and, indeed, I have come to that state 
of mind that I would far rather hear a man speak who is op- 
posed to me, than hear one speak who agrees exactly with 
myself. My object is to seek truth ; and if any man thinks 
differently from me on any subject, that is the man I want to 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 29 

hear. If I were a Unitarian, and thoroughly settled in that 
doctrine, if I paid my money for a minister at all, I would 
pay it for a Trinitarian. If I were a Trinitarian, I would pay 
my money to a Unitarian. If a Mohammedan comes along, 
and wishes to show me the absurdity of Christianity, and the 
beauty and glory of Mohammedanism, that is the man I want 
to hear. Don't get angry with him. He is a man, and has 
just as good a right to his views as you have to yours, and 
the same right to utter his opinions any where in the universe 
of God that you have to utter yours. (Applause.) There 
should be perfect freedom of opinions, and perfect liberty to 
utter them ; and we should set our faces like a flint against 
every thing to the contrary. Sir, I have settled down on this 
idea. Truth is indestructible — error alone can be destroyed, 
and whatever can be destroyed, ought to be destroyed. Mark 
it, Mr. Chairman, whatever is capable of being destroyed in 
religion, in theology, ought to be destroyed, and will he. 
(Applause.) It is not in the power of God himself to save 
any thing that can be destroyed, or that ought to be destroyed. 
He can not support error, and nothing but error can be de- 
stroyed. Truth can not be destroyed ; not one truth can ever 
be rooted up. I say, therefore, give the man an opportunity 
who comes to destroy what he believes to be error ; and if 
such a man goes to Dr. Hawes, and says to him, " I do not 
believe in the Bible as you do," and wishes an opportunity to 
correct some erroneous views concerning it, if Dr. Hawes be 
an honest seeker after truth he will say : " Welcome to you." 
(Applause.) He will say, " Here are the people to whom I 
speak. If your cause is wrong, we shall know it, and over- 
throw it. If it is truth, it can not be overthrown." So if an 
Atheist goes to any pulpit, and wishes to sh(;w the error, as 
he thinks, of the doctrine of the existence of a God, and wishes 
to show the evil influences of such a doctrine on the minds of 
men, give him an opportunity. Are you afraid that he can 
overthrow truth 1 Do you suppose that it is necessary for a 



30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

set of priests to gather around the tlirone of God to maintain 
if? Can not he maintain his own throne"? If he can not, 
let him be overthrown. (Applause.) I say let every thing 
be destroyed in the universe that is capable of being destroyed, 
and let us learn to bring every thing to the test of our own 
souls — to the God that speaks within us — to the God of truth. 
But why are people afraid ^ Why do they cry out, " infidel," 
"blasphemy'?" Mr. Chairman, I stand before you as one 
proud to be called an infidel by some people. I am an infi- 
del to their views. I can not be an honest man without it. 
I am an atheist to the God of a slaveholder, rumseller, or war- 
maker. I can not be an honest man and not be so, with my 
views of war, rumselling, and slavery. I believe that slavery 
is wrong. I believe that rumselling, rum-drinking, drinking 
alcohol in any shape, are all wrong ; and, of course, the man 
that worships at the shrine of a God that sanctions such things, 
believes in a thing that I do not. I am an atheist to such a 
Go^, as Jesus was to the God of the Gentiles around him. 

I want this discussion started just right. Let us be free 
with one another. You utter your thoughts, and I will utter 
mine ; and after we have done so, let us compare notes, and 
see who is in the right, and w^ho is in the wrong. "Welcome 
the man who comes to tear down your religion, if he comes 
as an honest man ; because, if he can tear any thing down in 
your religion, it ought to be torn down, and you ought to 
thank him for it ; and if he can not, you need not be excited 
and troubled at all ; because, if he can tear it down, your soul 
will be saved by the destruction of your religion. Do not 
be afraid. So I say in regard to your government. If there 
is a single principle in your government that can be torn 
down, it ought to be. If your government can be overturned, 
it ought to be. I mean with such weapons as we use. We 
only use the weapons of truth and reason. 

I say, therefore, do not be fluttered about a man who comes 
to tear down what you believe to be sacred. I am not 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 31 

troubled in the least, if a man comes to prove that I am a 
monkey. Let him try it. If I can not show that I ahi not 
a monkey, I must be called a monkey. If he comes to prove 
that I am a tiger, let him prove it, if he can. If I can not 
demonstrate that I am not a tiger, let him clasS me with the 
tigers. If a man comes to prove that I am a devil, and I 
can not prove the contrary, I must go to hell with the devils. 

Now, sir, in the examination of the question before us, let 
us start with the principle that we will have perfect freedom 
of thought and freedom of speech ; and while we exercise that 
freedom, we will leave others to do the same. Keep cool, be 
kind and loving, and at the same time plain-spoken. If any 
man feels disposed to denounce me — if it is in his heart, I 
hope that he will let it out — he will feel all the better for it. 

Mr. Chairman, I hold views concerning many things differ- 
ent from the views of those who are before me — some things 
which scarce any one in this house would believe. I take my 
stand-point touching the Bible, and of every thing in it I shall 
deem it my right to speak with perfect freedom. I shall 
speak, when I have occasion, of Jesus of Nazareth, and other 
characters mentioned in the Bible, and of the writers of the 
Bible, with perfect freedom. All I ask is that you shall ac- 
cord to me the rights of a man ; and if you do not accord 
them, I shall tahe them. (Applause.) I will not speak here 
or any where by tolerance. I reject the word. I speak be- 
cause it is a necessity of my nature — because it is my divine 
right. 

As it respects the Bible, I would interpret it as my friend 
Davis does: historically, metaphysically, scientifically, and 
morally. I believe there are many things in that book op- 
posed to the principles of morality ! They can not stand. 
There are many things taught in it that I believe to be con- 
trary to the fixed, eternal principles of justice and humanity. 

If in any thing that Jesus taught, I think that Jesus spoke 
or taught any thing immoral, 1 shall expose it exactly as if it 



355 PEOCEEDINGSOFTHE 

had been spoken by any other man. I look at that book ex- 
actly as T do upon any other book — I have no more respec 
for it than I have for any other. I shall sit in judgment upon 
what it contains, and receive what I conceive to be true and 
reject what I believe to be false. I look upon Jesus of 
Nazareth exactly as I do upon any other human being, and I 
sit in judgment upon every thing he said and did, exactly as 
you would do or look upon me, as a man — just as I do upon 
the gentlemen that sit before me. Coming into being under 
the same laws that I came into existence under, accountable 
at the same tribunal, to be judged in the future by the same 
laws that I am to be judged by — he was a human being, and 
liable to be mistaken ; and, therefore, in reading what he said 
and did, I claim the privilege to judge of the truth and the 
right of every thing he said and did exactly as I would judge 
of the sayings and actions of any body else. Now, judging 
of him as I do from my stand-point, I am committing great 
blasphemy and horrifying those w^ho look upon him as a God. 
Now, if there be such before me, all I have to say is, " Be 
cool and quiet. Your taunting of blasphemy and infidelity 
will not disturb me a particle." I have not come here to 
vindicate my right not to be called an infidel. I do not care 
what you call me. I am determined to live out myself in 
this world and not others. With this spirit let us go to work 
in this discussion. 

On motion of H. Wright it was decided that the Conven- 
tion should convene in the forenoon at half-past ten o'clock, 
in the afternoon at half-past two o'clock, and in the evening 
at half-past seven o'clock. 

Mr. William Stillman next took the floor, remarking that 
he was glad that the Convention had adopted the principle of 
free discussion, and that their platform was made free to all. 
Freedom of thought and speech was the foundation of all 
liberty, and an essential principle of republican institutions. 
He was not afraid of the discussion of any subject. Truth 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 33 

was mighty and would prevail. He differed essentially from 
the leading men of the Convention. He believed that the 
Bible was the word of God ; but he was willing that those 
who thought differently should have the opportunity of ex- 
pressing their views. The Bible was true, and therefore would 
stand ; but if it could not stand, let it fall. 

The Convention adjourned to half-past two o'clock, p.m. 



FIRST DAY— AFTERNOON SESSION. 

June Id. 
The Convention was called to order at half past two o'clock, 
by the president, when, 

On motion of H. C. Wright, two vice-presidents were cho- 
sen — William Green, Jr., of Hartford, and S. J. Dorrance, of 
Newark, N. J. 

H. C. Wright then offered the following resolution : 

iJcsoZwet?— That the Bible, in some parts of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, sanctions injustice, polygamy, concubinage, prostitution, oppres- 
sion, war, wholesale plunder, and murder, and therefore the doctrine 
that the Bible, as a whole, emanated from a God of love and justice, 
is false and injurious to the social and spiritual growth of man. 

Mr. Wright then remarked as follows : 

If the Church and clergy can defend that book against these 
charges, it will stand — it will stand, I mean, as Divine author- 
ity. I have no fear that any thing that is true in that book 
can be overthrown. There is a great amount of pure and 
good instruction in it. There is a good deal that teaches 
human love and brotherhood. At the same time, there is a 
vast amount that teaches hatred, malignant wrath, revenge, 
injustice, and every conceivable wrong that man can pc 

2* 



84 PKOCEEDINGSOFTHE 

trate upon his fellow-being, and sanctions it with a " Thus 
saith the Lord.'' These charges we are prepared to sustain. 
I summon Christendom to the trial, and let me say, that Chris- 
tendom will have to meet the question. I will address the 
conscience, reason, and intuitions of mankind, and I am not 
afraid at all to let the people judge of this matter. Let us 
meet the question fairly ; and in doing so, I hope that all 
personal bickerings will be dispensed with. 

Mr. DoRRANCE, the vice-president, taking the chair, Mr. 
Barker arose and said 

I came to this Convention to hear and to speak, and I shall 
not, therefore, feel perfectly at ease to occupy the chair the 
whole of the time ; I must take an opportunity of expressing 
some of my views on the great questions which the Call, read 
over this morning, submits to the Convention for considera- 
tion. The great questions are, first, what is the origin ; second, 
what is the authority ; and third, what is the influence of the 
Jewish and Christian Scriptures ? what is their authority in 
matters of truth and duty, and what their influence on indi- 
viduals and on society at large 1 Upon these matters I wish 
briefly to state my views. And, first, with respect to the 
origin of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. Our view is 
that their origin is purely human. When they originated — 
in what country they originated — by what individuals they 
were written — and through what changes they have passed 
since they were first written, are questions which I do not feel 
myself competent to answer. My inability to answer these 
questions does not arise from not having sought information 
respecting them, for I have been seeking information on those 
points for about thirty years. All that I have to say, in re- 
spect to my opinions, is, that the writings appear to me to 
have had a purely human origin, and not to have originated, 
as is generally believed, in some supernatural interposition of 
Heaven. I have read numbers of books which proposed to 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 85 

show when, and where, and how the various books comprising 
the Old and New Testament Scriptures originated ; but I have 
not met in any of those books what appeared to me to be 
facts or decisive reasonings. Much that is given in those 
books as fact is manifestly fiction. Much that is given as 
argument is mere conjecture, or something stated on the author- 
ity of persons, whose authority itself requires confirmation. 

The origin of the Scriptures, therefore, appears to me to be 
wrapped in mystery. Any one that thinks otherwise, is not 
only at liberty to state his views to the Convention, but in- 
vited and urged to do so. And now as to the authority of the 
book. The common opinion is, that the Bible is the Word 
of God — that it is of Divine authority — that every thing it 
says on any subject ought to be received as decisive — that 
whatever it teaches is true — that whatever it states as history 
is fact — and that whatever it inculcates as moral duty is really 
binding on the consciences of men. The book is considered 
as a standard of truth and of duty — a perfect rule of faith and 
practice. It is generally spoken of as the last appeal in all 
questions of a theological and moral nature. It is considered 
that by an appeal to this book, all questions of importance to 
the present and future interests of man may be settled. This 
is the common view. Is it a true view 1 Is the testimony of 
the Bible to be received as decisive on matters of history, 
theology, and morals ? Those who believe that the common 
view is correct, say they have reasons for their belief. Let 
them be so good as to state them. If they have reasons to 
satisfy their own minds, they may have reasons to satisfy ours. 
At present we know of no good grounds for regarding the 
book as entitled to this high place in the estimation of man- 
kind. We know of no clear and decisive proof to show that 
the book is of Divine authority in any thing. 

We have embraced every opportunity afforded us of hear- 
ing those who proposed to speak on this subject, and we have 
procured and read with care and impartiality, as far as we 



36 PEOCEEBINGSOFTHE 

could, every work that has been laid before the public on this 
point, and from what we have heard and read, we are led to 
believe that the common idea of the Divine authority of the 
Bible has no foundation in truth. The belief generally enter- 
tained on this point we conceive to be a great error, and an 
error exceedingly mischievous in its influence on society. Not 
only is it our impression that no decisive jyroof can be given 
of the Divine authority of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, 
but that proofs can be given to the contrary ; and very decisive 
proofs. The book bears upon its very face the marks of its 
human origin. It proves itgelf to be of human origin by its 
imperfections and errors. Take any copy of the Scriptures — 
any copy of any edition — any edition in any language — take a 
copy in any form, either in book or manuscript, and we under- 
take to prove that that copy has no Divine authority about it. 
In speaking of the Scriptures, we generally refer to the com- 
mon version, called " King James' translation." Let us, then, 
first direct our attention to it. We ask, Is the Bible in this 
form a book of Divine authority 1 Is its testimony decisive 
on any point of history, theology, or morals on which it may 
speak *? Will any minister of the Gospel — any advocate of 
the supernatural origin and Divine authority of the Scrip- 
tures, say so ? I believe not. Theologians, commentators, 
ministers of the Gospel, and even laymen, generally take the 
liberty, in their disputes with one anoth<?r, of appealing from 
the common version of the Bible to what they call the original 
Greek and Hebrew. The advocate of predestination, when 
worsted in an appeal to the common version of the Bible, does 
not give up his point, but says, " The passages cited against 
me are, in the Greek and Hebrew originals, strongly in my 
favor, though in the common version they are against me !" 
Very few of you can have failed to observe, that it is a com- 
mon practice of ministers of the Gospel in their ordinary dis- 
courses, to appeal from the common version to other forms 
of the Bible. The minister reads over the following text : 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 3l 

" Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God 
bestowed, on the churches in Macedonia !" He instantly 
remarks that the translation is imperfect. " We do you to wir 
does not convey the meaning of the original, says he ; " We 
do you to wit''' means " We wish to inform you ;" and the 
word '"'' grace^'' is somewhat obsolete. The meaning of the 
original is gift or favor. The minister again reads the follow- 
ing text. " Hereby perceive we the love of God^ because He 
laid down His life for us." But, says the minister, if he be 
one of the less blind and bigoted ones, " this can not be a 
correct translation. God did not lay down his life ; such a 
thing is impossible. The immortal God can not die. The 
common version is erroneous." He tells his hearers that the 
word " God''' in the common version is printed in italics, 
by which it is intimated that the word is not in the original, 
but that it is a word supplied by the translators, to make the 
passage express their own opinion or doctrine on this head. 

There are but two examples of the common practice of ap- 
pealing from the common version of the Scriptures to the 
Scriptures in some other form. No biblical commentator, 
then, no theologian, no minister of the gospel of any informa-' 
tion, will contend that the Bible, as we have it in the common 
English translation, is a book of divine authority. 

We may add, that the leading men in all denominations 
have not only believed the common version to be imperfect 
and erroneous, but have felt its imperfections and errors to be 
so many and so great as to feel themselves under the necessity 
of making other translations. Thus John Wesley, founder of 
the Methodist Church, made a new translation for his fol- 
lowers. Dr. Boothnoyd, of the Congregational Church, Eng- 
land, made another translation for the benefit of his denomi- 
nation. Dr. Conquest, a layman of the same denomination, 
made a third translation, in which he states that he had made 
twenty thousand emendations. Alexander Campbell, the 
founder of a new denomination, here in America, has pub- 



do PEOCEEDIKGSOFTHE 

lished another translation of the Christian Scriptures. English 
Unitarians have published a great number of new versions 
of the New Testament, while laymen and ministers of all 
denominations still contend that none that have appeared as 
yet are what they should be — that none of them do justice 
to the originals — that none of them succeed in giving a correct 
idea of the original Greek and Hebrew, and that another and 
a better is called for. Episcopalians, Methodists, Congrega- 
tionalists, Bapfists, and disciples all contend, and by their 
conduct prove, that they believe that the common version of 
the Scriptures is not correct ; and that it is not therefore an 
authoritative book. No disputant will yield a point merely 
because it is proved by the common version. No one con- 
siders that he has established his point, unless he has proved, 
not only that certain texts in the common version are in favor 
of the point, but that those texts, as found in what they call 
the originals, are in favor of it. 

The question of the authority of the Bible, then, is removed 
from the common translation to some other, or to what are 
called the original Greek and Hebrew. No person will con- 
*tend, that while the English translation is imperfect and want- 
ing in authority, the Spanish, Latin, Erench, German, Welsh, 
or Irish translation is authoritative. Some members of the 
Church of Rome may contend, now, that the old Latin trans- 
lation, called the Vulgate, is of divine authority ; but others 
of them will acknowledge that this version has often been 
improved, and that still it is not perfect. All translations, 
then, must be given up as wanting in authority. They must 
be considered as books having nothing more than human 
authority, which is no authority whatever. 

They appeal, therefore, next to the Greek and Hebrew 
Scriptures. Those, they say, are works of authority. Are 
they*? Where is the evidence] We no sooner propose to 
refer to the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, than we are met 
by a number of contending Greek and Hebrew biblical critics, 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. ' 39 

each one contending that he, and he only, possesses what may- 
be considered the most correct and authoritative text of these 
Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. For it should be remem- 
bered, that the Greek and Hebrew Bibles are not one, but 
many. If you wish to appeal to the Greek Testament, the 
question arises whether you will go to the common Greek Test- 
ament, or to Griesbach, or Schultz, or to some later compiler. 
Griesbach has some readings which the common text has not, 
and the common text has readings which Griesbach has not. 
Schultz rejects some readings which Griesbach retains, and 
Griesbach rejects some readings which Schultz retains. Some 
insert reading that others reject, and reject what others insert. 
And so it will continue to be. Now, no biblical commentator 
or critic will contend that every Greek Testament is a book 
of divine authority. He can not ; because the different Greek 
Testaments vary too much with each other. What one 
teaches, another *contradicts; and what one denies, another 
affirms. It is impossible they can all be right, though possi- 
ble they may all be wrong. Not one of them is of divine 
authority. 

Where shall we find our authority % We must go to the 
manuscripts^ say they, which the publishers of the various 
Greek Testaments collated in forming their texts. We must go 
to the manuscripts, must we 1 But what are the manuscripts ? 
When did they originate % Through what changes have they 
passed 1 Do they all agree ? Do they all contain the same 
books'? Or do they contain different books; and do those 
which contain the same books contain them in the same form, 
or in almost infinitely different forms 1 These are questions 
which the common people can not be expected to answer. Yet, 
mark, the authority is specially needed for the common people 
— something to give them decisive information with respect to 
matters of history, theology, and morals. But, a« we said, the 
common people can not answer these questions. They can 
not refer to the Greek Testaments, or to the manuscripts 



40 ' PROCEEDINGS OFTHE 

which lie behind those testaments. The people in general 
can not read Greek, and those who can, can not all consult 
the nianuscripts. Where are the manuscripts? Who copied 
them from previous manuscripts? Where have they been 
kept 1 What assurance have we that they have never been 
corrupted during the dark and eventful ages of the past? 
What proof have we to satisfy the mind of the doubtful indi- 
vidual, that they have never been corrupted? None. But 
we have proof to the contrary — proof to show that those 
manuscripts have undergone serious changes — that they are 
as imperfect as any Greek Testament that was ever compiled ; 
perhaps as imperfect as any translation that was ever made. 
Those different manuscripts which are the last appeal, vary 
almost endlessly. 

One man, John Mills, collected no less than thirty thousand 
different readings ; that is, he marked thirty thousand different 
places in which those manuscripts varied from each other. 
Sometimes, it is true, the difference was 'only slight — a differ 
ence in a letter, or a stop ; but a letter or a stop is frequently 
of great importance. Take the following from a metrical 
version of the Psalms as an instance : 

" The Lord shall come, and he shall not." " Keep silence, 
but speak out." Every thing here depends upon the stop or 
mark of punctuation. Place the full stop after the word 
"not," and you have a contradiction. "The Lord shall 
come, and he shall not." Then place a comma after the 
word "silence," and you have another contradiction. "Keep 
silence, but speak out." 

Thus we can not infer that the difference between manu- 
scripts is unimportant, simply because they only differ in the 
position or insertion of a mark of punctuation ; sometimes a 
single letter entirely alters the sense. There are many differ- 
ent readings in the Greek manuscripts which theologians 
themselves deem of great importance. There are some pas- 
sages which favor the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, as 



HAETPOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 4:1 

they stand in some manuscripts ; but those passages as found 
in other manuscripts do not favor this doctrine. In some of 
these manuscripts a passage will be found, which has been 
considered as the great resting-place of the doctrine of the 
trinity ; but other manuscripts do not contain this passage at 
all. Since John Mills' time, other individuals have directed 
their attention to the matter, and have collected not less than 
one hundred and fifty thousand diiferent readings; and the 
probability is, that future researches will increase the number 
to a quarter of a million. Now, all these manuscripts can 
not be of divine authority. Are any of them of divine author- 
ity"? Suppose it were a fact that some of them were of 
divine authority, by what means should we distinguish those 
that were of divine authority from the rest? 

Perhaps some one will say, by comparing them wnth the 
original manuscripts of the authors of the various Scrip- 
tures. But the originals have perished. They perished, 
probably, some fifteen hundred years ago. If they have not 
perished, they have, at least, gone out of sight ; and no one 
knows where they can be found! You can not, therefore, 
compare the discordant manuscripts with the originals. You 
can only compare them with each other, or with your own 
ideas of what you think right. There is no divine or infallible 
authority to which we can appeal. All corrections hitherto 
made in those manuscripts have been made by men of fallible 
judgments. The texts of the Old and New Testaments have 
been collected by men who were biased by their creeds, and 
preconceived theological opinions, and therefore far more 
liable to err than most other men ; and the consequence is, that 
we are left altogether without a book of any authority. The 
common translation, which is the only Bible known by people 
generally, was not the work of men, who not only gave suffi- 
cient evidence of great intellectual failings, but of the grossest 
moral defects — men who raised themselves to high places in 
the church by perjury — men who swore they believed things 



42, PROCEEDINaS OF THE 

that they knew to be false, and pledged themselves on oath 
to do what they never intended to do. Selfish, proud, intol- 
erant, cruel men. It is doubtful whether any men can be 
found on earth who have given more reasons to the world to 
suspect the virtue of their characters and the purity of their 
motives, than that class of men from which the translators of 
the common version of the Bible were selected. And no one 
will contend that those who have published Greek or Hebrew 
Bibles were perfect in intelligence or virtue. No one will 
contend that those who made the manuscripts from which the 
Greek and Hebrew texts have been compiled, were men per- 
fect in understanding or virtue. Every Bible in existence is 
the production of erring and imperfect men. We have no 
Bible which is not either a translation made by erring and 
imperfect men, or Greek and Hebrew compilation made by 
erring men, from discordant Greek and Hebrew manuscripts ; 
nor have we a manuscript that is not the work of men who 
were fallible and imperfect. 

I defy any clergyman acquainted with this matter to stand 
up here and say — we will make no mention of proof — 1 say, 
I defy any clergyman to say, that any particular translation, or 
version, or text, or manuscript, is any other than the work of 
fallible men. This, then, of itself settles the question as to 
the authority of the book. It is not a book of divine authority. 
Even supposing that the men who wrote the fii-st manuscripts, 
wrote under special divine inspiration — even supposing, ac- 
cording to the common notion, that they were employed by 
God, as pens are employed by men, in writing the Bible — 
supposing that the words and thoughts were originally God's 
own words and thoughts, every thing being really true and 
absolutely perfect — truth without mixture of error — it would 
not alter the matter ; because those original manuscripts no 
longer exist. If ever men did write under special plenary in- 
spiration, the books they wrote have disappeared — we have 
Ihem not. All that we have are imperfect copies — not of 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 43 

the original books, but of other copies, which were them- 
selves not copies of the original books, but of other copies, 
which were not copies of the original books still, but of othei 
preexisting copies, which were the work of fallible men, all 
containing in themselves marks of error and imperfection. 

But this is not the only argument we use on this subject. 
We appeal to the contents of the book, as we have it, in proof 
that it is not a work of authority — a work on which we can 
rely. And if any individual should shift the responsibility 
from modern translations to more ancient ones, or from the 
more ancient translations to the Greek and Hebrew manu- 
scripts, the result will be the same. We challenge them to 
bring forward any book in Christendom which is not liable to 
the same objections that are brought against the common 
version, or to similar objections. There are objections to be 
brought against the Greek and Hebrew texts, which do not 
lie against the common version. In some respects the com- 
mon version is inferior to the Greek and Hebrew Testaments ; 
but in Athens the Greek and Hebrew Bibles are inferior to 
the common translation. There are some passages which, as 
they are found in the common translation, could be read in 
families, which could not be read in families as they stand in 
the Greek and Hebrew languages, if we were as conversant 
with those languages as we are with the English. 

We will take, then, the common Bible, and we contend 
that it is possible to prove from the book itself, not only that 
it is not a book of divine and absolute authority, but that it 
abounds with grievous errors, with contradictions in reference 
to matters of fact, and inconsistencies with respect to moral 
and theological principles, with contradictions of our own ex- 
perience and instincts — of our own reason — of what we know 
and feel to be just, and true, and good. Nay, further, that 
the book, as we have it, is acknowledged by some of its own 
advocates — some of those who believe it to be the Word of 
God — to contradict what are known to \)q facts. 



44: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Suppose we begin with the beginning of the book — the ao 
coun* of the creation as contained in Genesis. Is this account, 
as we have it here, and as it is understood by nhieteen twen- 
tieths of the Christian world, strictly true 1 Is it in agree- 
ment with facts ? Can its statements be reconciled with the 
revelations of geology — with the teachings of astronomy 1 
Can they be reconciled with themselves? You will find even 
among those who favor the Divine authority of the Jewish 
Scriptures, persons who will acknowledge that geology does 
not agree with the common reading of the acix)unt of the crea- 
tion, as given in the book of Genesis. This book would lead 
you to suppose that the heavens and the earth, and all things 
that are therein, were created in six days ; but geologists, 
even Christian geologists, will tell you that the earth's crust 
proves that the earth must have existed more than sixty thou- 
sand, or sixty times sixty thousand years. The account in 
Genesis, as generally read and understood, tells you that death 
came into the world as the result of man's sin ; but there are 
not wanting theologians even, who will tell you that death 
prevailed in the world ages before the first human being ap- 
peared upon earth. The account in Genesis would naturally 
lead you to suppose that above the earth was a firm arch, a 
solid framework, above which were oceans of water ; that in 
that framework were placed windows through which the water 
was occasionally let down, when the earth was to be watered, 
or when some intention existed in the Divine mind to drown 
its inhabitants. But theologians will now tell you that this 
representation of the matter is merely what they miscall an 
adaptation of the truth to the common mind. They will tell 
you that though it is God that is speaking. He is speaking in 
the erroneous language of men. They will confess that those 
who first had the Scriptures, were really taught by them to 
believe that above the atmosphere there was a solid frame- 
work in which windows were placed for letting down water, 
although no such thing existed. They distinguish between 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 45 

what they call real truth and apparent truth ; and they say that 
in the Book of Genesis God speaks not real truth, but ap- 
parent truth only, which being interpreted, is real falsehood. 
They do, in effect, give up not only the Divine authority of 
the Bible, but its common truthfulness. In truth, they make 
God a willful liar, a systematic deceiver. Some of these 
statements, as they stand in th-e common version, are not only 
opposed to the revelation of Geology and Astronomy, but to 
each other. In one place the book tells you that the light was 
created on the first day ; and that on the first day the light was 
separated from the darkness, and that the light was called day 
and the darkness night ; and that there there were three days and 
three nights before the sun, and moon, and stars were created ; 
for a little after you are expressly told, that God created, on the 
fourth day, the sun, and moon, and stars, to divide the light 
from the darkness, etc. I presume that no individual would 
say that God separated the darkness from the light twice. I 
know there are those who try to get over this difficulty by say- 
ing that God created the light on the first day, and gathered 
it together and fixed it in the sun on the fourth day. And there 
are those, among whom is Dr. Adam Clarke, who contend 
that the light which God first created the first day, was latent 
light ; hidden light. But the doctor should have known that 
it would be impossible to make three days out of latent, hid- 
den, invisible light. (Hear, hear.) Again : another portion 
of Genesis tells you that God first created the different ani- 
mals which live in the sea, in the air, and on the earth, and 
after that made man and woman ; but another passage tells 
you that God first made man^ and then created out of the 
ground all kinds of living creatures, and brought them to 
Adam to see what he would call them, and to ascertain 
whether he could find among them a suitable companion ; but 
among the sheep, the goats, the asses, and camels, man did 
not find a suitable companion — a helpmeet for him. Then 
God is said to have caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and 



46 PROCEED I KGSOF THE 

to have formed woman out of a rib which he took from his 
side during sleep. We have similar contradictory account? 
as to the deluge, etc. 

Now these contradictory matters do themselves settle the 
question as to the authority of the Bible. The book that con- 
tradicts science, and that contradicts itself, is a book of no 
authority whatever. It is not entitled to rule any man. But 
these are little matters. The book gives, I was going to say, 
the most unaccountable representations of God. That word 
I will, however, take back. It is wrong, perhaps, for any indi- 
vidual to undertake to say what views of God are unaccount- 
able, especially when we consider that man may have origin- 
ated with faculties inferior to those possessed by men at the 
present day ; but while we may withdraw the word " unac- 
countable," we must say that the Bible contains the strangest, 
the wildest, the most inconsistent, the most monstrous and 
blasphemous representations of God that can possibly be con- 
ceived by the human mind. 

In the first place, he is represented as a man — walking, 
talking, eating, and drinking. As a man, he is represented as 
finite in his presence, as finite in his dwelling-place. He is 
represented as living at a distance from the earth, and as not 
knowing what is going on among the earth's inhabitants.; but 
as dependent upon the reports which he receives from his ser- 
vants, as to the conduct of mankind. When in doubt as to 
the correctness of the reports brought him by his servants, he 
is represented as saying, " I will go down and see for myself." 
He is represented as not knowing what is in men's hearts un- 
til he has tried them. He is represented as in doubt as to 
whether Abraham really loved him or not, and whether or 
not he had in his heart the principle of unfaltering obedience 
to his commands, until he had commanded Abraham to do 
what, if any spiritual communication should tell you to do, 
you would not consider the communicating spirit as good as 
he ought to be. He is represented as telling Abraham to 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 47 

take his son and kill him, in order that he might have a proot 
that Abraham was willing to do any thing that he might com- 
mand. When Abraham had prepared to kill his child, and 
held the torch to kindle the pile to consume to ashes his only 
son, God is represented as saying, " Now I know that thou 
fearest me, since thou hast not withheld thy son, thy only 
son, from me." He is represented as in doubt as to the dis- 
position of the Jewish people. The Scriptures represent him 
as saying that he had led them through the wilderness forty 
years, that he might try them, and know whether they would 
keep his commandments or not. 

This, however, is only attributing to God innocent human 
imperfections. Other portions of the book attribute to him 
more serious characteristics. They represent him as doing 
that which is fearfully unjust and immeasurably cruel. I re- 
fer you, in the first place, to the representations contained in 
the third chapter of Genesis, of God's conduct toward our 
first parents and the race of mankind generally. Unto the 
woman he said : " I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy 
conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and 
thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over 
thee." This represents God as subjecting woman, in all coun- 
tries and ages, to certain pains and penalties, in consequence 
of the sin of one woman. Shall we believe this of God ? 
Shall we believe that because Eve was first in the transgres- 
sion, all women, throughout all lands, are to be in subjection 
to the end of time % Shall we believe, because one woman 
transgressed nearly six thousand years ago, that all women, 
in all ages and countries, are to be subjected to the most try- 
ing afflictions % Would it be just in God to punish all women 
for the crime of one woman % 

Unto Adam God is represented as saying : '' Because thou 
hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the 
tree which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of 
it : cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou 



\ 



48 PEOCEEDINGSOFTHE 

eat of it all the days of thy life : Thorns also, and thistles 
shall it bring forth to thee ; and thou shalt eat the herb of the 
field," etc. — Gen. iii., 17-19. I shall not stop to inquire 
whether death did enter into the world in consequence of the 
sin of Adam ; nor whether thorns and thistles first began to 
grow at that time ; nor whether they are a great curse to 
man ; simply asserting that they are a great blessing, by rea- 
son of their bringing up to the surface certain qualities of soil 
which enrich the land ; nor shall I stop to consider whether 
labor was first introduced into the world after the sin of Adam ; 
nor whether man really does eat of the fruit of the ground in 
sorrow all the days of his life. I will not ask whether you 
eat of your food perpetually with sorrow, as I know you do 
not ; and as some other parts of Scripture represent a portion 
of the race as eating their food with gladness of heart, it is 
my opinion that these representations are false — that man 
does not eat his food all the days of his life in sorrow, nor one 
day in fifty ; that it is not a calamity to eat the herb of the 
field, etc., etc. But supposing those representations were true, 
the question arises, could God, could any being, justly inflict 
a number of curses upon every human being, throughout all 
ages and all countries, for the sin of one human being? 
Would not a God that could do so be justly chargeable with 
injustice. [A Voice — Yes.] Would not those to whom he 
acted thus be entitled to complain ? 1 do not believe that 
God ever did such a thing. 

The representations of Genesis on this subject are contrary 
to other portions of the Bible itself. God is represented as 
sending forth a prophet to say, " They shall say no more, the 
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are 
set on edge ; but every one shall die for his own iniquity." 
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die." " The son shall not bear 
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the in- 
iquity of the son." There is one thing that we can say in 
favor of the Scriptures, that they seldom or never teach a false 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 49 

doctrine in one place but that in some other place they con- 
tradict it. They seldom or never in one place teach bad 
morality, but that in some other place they teach something 
which is in opposition to it, and in harmony with human na- 
ture. Hence, men may cull a great many good lessons from, 
the Bible, provided they read with discrimination, " proving 
all things, and holding fast that only which is good ;" but, at 
the same time, if men take the Bible as a whole, and try to 
reduce the Avhole to practice, they will be undertaking an im- 
possibility, and be the means of making themselves exceed- 
ingly ridiculous, and of bringing themselves to a miserable 
end. --- 

But these representations of God are not the worst that are 
given in the Scriptures. Other portions of Scripture repre- 
sent God as demanding that the children or the grand-chil- 
dren should be given up and hung till they were dead, in order 
to turn away a curse from the land, and bring to an end a 
famine which is supposed to have been brought upon the coun- 
try by the offenses of the grandfather. You will find pas- 
sages representing God as sanctioning and commanding the 
most awful cruelties. These passages I will leave for my 
friend, H. C. Wright, to quote. In short, there is nothing 
which could be considered as unjust or wicked in a man^ that 
God is not represented as doing or encouraging others to do, 
or permitting them to do without reproof. 

We have spoken of the representations which the Scriptures 
give of God. Let us now refer to their teachings in reference 
to human duty. It seems to me that the Bible sanctions 
polygamy, concubinage, fornication, adultery, secret assassina- 
tion, lying, theft, human sacrifices, murder, parental cruelty, 
slavery, war, conjugal infidelity, and every form of vileness 
and villany. It sanctions those things in every way in which 
a book can sanction such crimes. It commands them. It re-, 
cords instances of them without reproof. It represents men 
who are guilty of them as among God's favorites. These 

3 



60 PEOCEEDINGSOFTHE 

would be thought a sufficient sanction of crime in any other 
book. Let us suppose for a moment that the book of Mor- 
mon is under discussion, and that theologians are discussing 
with a believer in that book, its merits. They represent it as 
sanctioning cruelty and war. The believer asks for proof, and 
is told in reply that there are certain passages in it which 
represent God as commanding certain persons to go to war ; 
there are certain passages in which God is represented as re- 
buking certain persons because they had spared the lives of 
some of the vanquished. It is contended, too, by the theo- 
logians, that certain books of the Mormons sanction polygamy, 
because they not only mention polygamy without giving any 
intimation that it is wrong, but represent polygamy as prac- 
ticed by God's best servants — the men after his own heart — 
men whom God holds forth as commendable for their virtue 
and goodness. But the Bible does all this. We will allow 
the defenders of the Bible to give their own tests in this m^at- 
ter, and by their own tests it shall be found that the Bible 
sanctions polygamy. Abraham is represented as practicing 
polygamy — polygamy or adultery, call it what you pkase — 
but does God complain of Abraham for doing so 1 Does any 
portion of the Bible do so 1 Does the Bible say that Abra- 
ham was an imperfect man, and that we must make allow- 
ances for him "? It expressly says, or represents God as say- 
ing, that Abraham had obeyed the voice of God, and kept his 
charge — his commandments, statutes, and laws. If this is not 
sanctioning polygamy, I know not what is. David is repre- 
sented as the special favorite of God. God is represented as 
taking special care of him. He is represented as walking with 
the Lord, with a perfect heart ; yet David was a polygamist. 
The Bible never represents God as blaming David for polyg- 
amy. True, when David seduced the wife of Uriah, and slew 
him to conceal his crime, he was rebuked ; but he is never re- 
buked for polygamy. God is represented as having given to 
David all the wives of his master, and the Bible says else- 



HARTFORD BIBLE COKVENTION. 51 

where that David did that which was right in the eyes of the 
Lord, save only in the matter of Uriah, the Hittite.. The Lord 
is represented as giving David all the wives of his master, 
Saul, one of them being the mother of his first lu'ife. If this is 
not a sanction of polygamy, I know not what is. 

Then in respect to slavery, the greatest crime and worst 
curse in God's creation, what does the Bible say 1 Does the 
Bible denounce slavery % Does it say that it is a calamity 
which no man would wish to have inflicted upon himself, his 
wife, or his children ; and that therefore no man ought to in- 
flict it upon any other human being ? Does it say that slav- 
ery is always associated with every other evil, and that it 
can not be perpetuated without perpetuating all forms of cru- 
elty 1 Does it say that slaveholding is a curse to the slave- 
holder, as well as a curse to the slave *? Does it say that it 
is the sum of all villanies ; and that he who is guilty of slave- 
holding is chargeable with every crime 1 Does it say that 
it is associated with licentiousness and corruption of every 
kindl Does it say any thing of this kind? Not a word; 
but it represents certain slaveholders as the best and wisest 
men mentioned in the Bible — men especially approved by 
God. It represents God as dooming woman to slavery to 
man ; thus making slavery almost universal as the race. 
Another portion represents God as dooming one third of the 
human race to slavery to the other two thirds. It represents 
God as giving certain portions of the heathen to the Jews for 
bondmen — as giving them, not only as bond-servants, but as 
property, to be an inheritance for them and their children for- 
ever. The Ten Commandments make regulations for slavery ; 
but utter not a word against slavery ; they only require that 
the slaves should have rest on the Sabbath, and forbid peo- 
ple to covet their neighbors' bond-servants. It seems to me 
ridiculous that any man should call in question the doctrine 
of Professor Moses Stuart on this subject,, in his work entitled 
" Conscience and the Constitution." It seems ridiculous that 



52 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

any minister should stand up and say, that the Bible, frono 
beginning to end, gives no sanction to slavery. I acknowl- 
edge that there is no great subject on which the Bible does 
not take opposite sides ; but it is certain that portions of the 
Bible take the side of slavery. 

If Paul be a true interpreter of Christ's doctrine, slavery 
is a thing concerning which a man should not trouble him 
self; for he says : " Art thou called being a servant, care not 
for it; but if thou mayst be made free, use it rather," as 
much as to say, " there is a little difference between slavery 
and. freedom; but not much." Paul's anxiety is that men 
should think little of slavery and little of marriage — mar- 
riage, the first, the best, the happiest of all institutions on 
earth. He thought that it was best not to marry except 
for one purpose, and that for a low and brutal one. It 
would be better, at least in his time, to keep single, only 
it is better to marry than to . Look and see the expres- 
sion for yourselves. 

The Bible sanctions a system of slavery which allowed a 
man to scourge his slave to death, and go unpunished, if the 
slave lived a day or two after his scourging ; simply because 
the slave was the master's money. I can not see, if the Bible 
be the only thing that is to disturb the conscience of the slave- 
holder, how the slaveholder's conscience has any need to be 
disturbed. Yet slavery is the greatest of all evils, if we regard 
it as a calamity ; and the greatest of all crimes, if we regard 
it as an act. 

Then, again, the Bible countenances lying. You all remem- 
ber, who have read the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Eebecca, 
Joseph, and David, that they all occasionally, at least, prac- 
ticed lying in its most palpable form, saying that a thing was, 
when it was not, and that a thing was not, when they knew 
that it was. Some of them deceived for dishonest purposes — 
for unnatural and cruel purposes. Yet, in referring to these 
men, not a single writer of the Bible gives us the least hint 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 53 

that these men did what was wrong hi thus lying — that in 
lying they committed a sin. 

If I am not mistaken, there are theologians in this country, 
who contend, on scriptural grounds, that in certain cases 
polygamy is to be tolerated — that we have no right to con- 
demn it, or to make it a disciplinary offense — that we have no 
right to expel people from the church for it. The American 
Board of Missions has done this, if I am rightly informed. I 
have seen it stated in the papers, that that board has laid it 
down, or individuals, at least, connected with that board, 
have laid it down as a principle, that we have no right, on 
scriptural grounds, for excluding from the churches polyga- 
mists. [Voice — They have made a report to that effect.] So 
I have read. 

There is one body of men (I refer to the Latter-Day Saints) 
who call themselves Christians (and none of the rest do any 
more), and they lay it down as a principle that polygamy is 
right, and that there are cases in which a man would sin 
against God, against man, and against woman (laughter), if he 
did not take more wives than one ; and they say, that pro- 
vided his first wife has enough of the Holy Ghost in her, she 
will have no objection to her husband's having another wife, 
although she might not like it in the natural state. Nature^ 
unregenerate nature, they acknowledge revolts against it ; but 
grace will enable a woman to submit to it cheerfully. They 
contend, too, on scriptural grounds, that they have a right to 
murder, and they have persons among them whose business it 
is to see that no man escapes with life who is likely to betray 
them. They contend, also, that it is right to hold slaves, and 
they also believe it to be right to cut off all the Gentiles, 
and we are all considered as Gentiles (cries of hear, hear) ; 
and to me it seems as plain as the light of heaven, that the 
Bible is in favor of all these things. I have read discussions 
between Latter-Day Saints and orthodox clergymen, and I 
could not help feeling that the Latter-Day Saints have greatly 



54: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

the advantage on scripture grounds, and that the orthodox 
man is as helpless as a child in their hands. The Mormonites 
have better grounds for receiving their books as God's word, 
than Christians have for receiving the Bible as God's word. 

"Well, but," says some one, "Joseph Smith was a liar." 
But did Peter never lie"? Did he not perjure himself on the 
most solemn of all occasions, and swear that he did not know 
his master'? But do you, therefore, reject Peter's writings'? 
" But that was before he was strengthened and illuminated by 
the Holy Ghost," you say. Well, then, take Paul's account 
of Peter's conduct after he received the Holy Ghost. He 
says that Peter dissembled, and that he withstood him to the 
face, because he was to be blamed. It seems then, that a 
fault in a man after he has been filled with the Holy Ghost 
will not invalidate his writings, according to Scripture. In 
spite of all that can be said by orthodox theologians, the Lat- 
ter-Day Saints will force them to change their course of argu- 
ment, or compel them to tolerate, on scriptural grounds, 
polygamy, slavery, lying, murder, theft, and many other evils. 

In the Old Testament writings, I know of no portion that 
is more generally read, more generally sung, and more highly 
praised, than the Psalms. But are the Psalms all divine'? 
Are their moral teachings all of God % Just hear a few por- 
tions of them. Speaking of certain persons who reproached 
him, the author of the sixty-ninth Psalm says : 

Let their table become a snare before them ; and that which should 
have been for their welfare, let it become a traji Let their eyes be 
darkened, that they see not ; and make their loins continually to shake. 
Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take 
hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in 
their tents. Add iniquity to their iniquity; and let them not come 
into thy righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the 
living, and not be written with the righteous. — Ps. Ixix., 22-25, 27, 28. 

This is fierce and malignant enough. But listen now to 
another : 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 65 

Set thou a -wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right 
hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his 
prayer become sin. Let his days be few ; and let another take his 
office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his 
children be continally vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread 
also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that 
he hath ; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to 
extend mercy unto him ; neither let there be any to favor his father- 
less children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation fol- 
lowing let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers 
be remembered with the Lord ; and let not the sin of his mother be 
blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may 
cut off the memory of them from the earth. As he loved cursing, so 
let it come unto him ; as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far 
from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his gar- 
ment, so let it come unto his bowels like water, and like oil into his 
bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covcreth him, and for 
a girdle wherewith he his girded continually. Let this be the reward 
of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against 
my soul. But do thou for me, God the Lord, for thy name sake; 
because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me. — Ps. cix., 6-15, 17-21. 

Can you find any prayer like that in any other book 1 Can 
you find any thing like it in the book of Mormon 1 — in the 
Shaster ? — in the Koran ? — or in any infidel book ? If you found 
such a prayer in Thomas Paine's books, and did not happen 
to see it in the Bible, what would be your account of Thomas 
Paine's heart? You would tax your powers to the utmost 
to give a hellish enough description of it. " What a black 
monster ! What a heart — full of bile ! What a vast amount 
of hell must dwell in that man's bosom ! !" But this is in the 
Bible, and that being all divine, this prayer must be regarded 
as good ; and to know whether our prayers be good or not, 
we must take care, according to the orthodox theory, to see 
that they agree with these examples just given from the 
Scriptures. In speaking of Babylon, the Psalmist says in the 
one hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, " Happy shall he be 
that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." It 
is well that we (referring to the anti-bible men) do not say 



56 PEOOEEDIiraSOPTHE 

such things. It is well that those who are called skeptics and 
unbelievers never utter such things, else how could we defend 
ourselves against our opponents? How can those who regard 
the Bible as a collection of pure morals — how will they defend 
themselves'? and how will they justify their views of the book? 
The Bible teaches bad morals on other subjects. Read 
the first five verses of the thirteenth chapter of Paul's Epistle 
to the Romans : 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher poTvers ; for there is no 
power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoso- 
ever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and 
they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are 
not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be 
afraid of the power .' Do that which is good, and thou shalt have 
praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the 
sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute 
wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, 
not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. — Rom. xiii. 1-5. 

There was a time when I supposed that these passages were 
the rule by which we should be governed in political and 
governmental affairs. By this rule all are bound who receive 
the Bible as God's word. They must regard all opponents 
of existing rulers as rebels against God, and as sure of dam- 
nation. Washington would not have been very much helped 
in his cause, had he. just before an onslaught on the British 
army, read this passage to his soldiers : " Let every soul be 
subject to the higher powers ; for there is no power but of 
God : the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, 
therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; 
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." 
It would not have done much to make strong the hearts of 
those noble men who made the Declaration of Americim In- 
dependence. Then see the falsehood of the statement here 
made : " Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the 
evil." " Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 57 

of the same." Falser statements could hardly be uttered. 
We know that " the higher powers" — " the rulers" — are not 
always a terror to evil works. We know, too, that those who 
do good works do not always receive praise of them. It is 
often the contrary. They often use the sword to execute 
wrath upon the well-d.o%\\ and to uphold the man that did 
evil. The rulers of this country do so at this hour. They 
threaten with punishment the man who helps the flying bond- 
man, and praise the heartless wretches who pursue and cap- 
ture them. If the doctrine contained in these passages be 
true, your forefathers, when they resisted the power of Great 
Britain, resisted God — they resisted his ordinances, and have 
received at his hands damnation. 

The Bible inculcates bad morality with respect to husbands 
and wives. The New Testament requires every wife to be 
subject to her husband in all things, even as the church is 
subject to Christ. I heard a woman, last week, contending 
that the word "subject" here did not mean "obedient," re- 
ferring to the original to prove her position. I referred her, 
nowever, to a passage where this distinction would not serve 
her. " Likewise, ye wives be in subjection to your own hus- 
bands," etc. — 1 Pet., iii. 1. "For after this manner, in the 
old time, the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned 
themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands. 
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daugh- 
ters ye are," etc. — 1 Pet., iii. 5, 6. Here subjection and obe- 
dience both are required, and the subjection is unlimited, and 
the obedience is unmeasured; no exception is made. The 
wife may be much more intelligent than her husband — much 
more virtuous — much more faithful — much more true; but 
no matter, she must obey her husband in all things. Her 
husband may be as ignorant as an ass, and as cruel as a tiger ; 
but no matter ; the passage still requires that as the church 
is subject unto Christ, so the woman should be subject unto 
her husband in all things. The reasons assigned by the Bible 

3* 



58 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

for this subjection and obedience are of the most foolish de- 
scription possible. It argues that the woman should be sub- 
ject to the man, because the man was first formed. It might 
with just as much propriety have reasoned that man should 
be subject to the ox, the ass, or the hog, because they were 
formed first. Other reasons are given by the Bible for this 
subjection of woman to man, all equally foolish, but it is not 
necessary to quote them. The doctrine taught in the passages 
alluded to evidently is, that man should be absolute in power, 
and woman absolute in subjection and obedience. A more un- 
reasonable, unjust, or mischievous doctrine could not be taught. 
A doctrine as dangerous is taught in reference to the church. 
All church members are commanded to obey those that have 
the rule over them. This is the sum and substance of all 
church tyranny. Men may affirm as often as they please that 
the Bible is opposed to priestcraft ; yet it is a fact that the Bi- 
ble teaches doctrines which are at the basis of all priestcraft. 
Even Jesus himself is represented as saying, that the people 
should obey those who sat in Moses' seat ; and, although in 
some other places he is represented as warning his disciples 
against their doctrine, yet Paul recognizes the principle that 
rulers have a proper place in the church, and commands all 
Christians to obey those who have the rule over them, and 
who w^atch for their souls. Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy, 
speaks of elders who have ruled well in the church as entitled 
to double honor. We have principles in the Bible which, in 
defiance of all that can be said to the contrary, sanction the 
worst evils under heaven — slavery, which is the worst of all 
evils — then political despotism and church authority ; and to 
say which of these is the w^orst w^ould puzzle man; but 
whichever is worst, one thing is certain, that church authority 
— priestcraft — is always found on the side of slavery and 
despotism. We may justly represent Slavery, Despotism, 
and Priestcraft as a trinity of evils which will match all other 
evils combined. This is a small sample of the bad morality 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 59 

and false theology taught in the Bible. A thousand samples 
of false and vicious doctrine might be given, but we have 
given enough as a beginning. 

Supposing that it could be really proved by historical argu- 
ments — and no man knows how few and worthless the histor- 
ical arguments are until he comes to seek for them and weigh 
them — I say, supposing that by some kind of external his- 
torical arguments a man could prove that the Bible came 
originally from God — that its contents were all divine — would 
he have succeeded in proving that the Bible was a perfect 
rule of faith and practice? We say, no. Even if true, it 
could not be a perfect rule of faith and practice ; its meaning 
is so doubtful. It is utterly impossible to come to an abso- 
lute certainty as to what the Scriptures teach. They are so 
indefinite in their teachings, and the interpretations of them 
are so various and so inconsistent, that it is impossible for 
any mortal man to use them as a rule of faith and practice to 
advantage. The only way in which a man can make use of 
them to advantage is, to take all his best feelings and affec- 
tions, his purest and divinest conceptions of duty, and his 
noblest and most elevated thoughts, and force them into pas- 
sages of scripture, and call them his bible, and use them as 
his rule. 

Mr. George Stores then arose and said : Mr. Chairman, 
when a court is in session, or opens its session, and a person 
is brought before that court charged with crime, it is import- 
ant to understand at the outset by what law that person is to 
be convicted of crime. The Bible is arraigned, charged with 
crimes, but we have not yet been told by what law the Bible 
is to be tried. This is a point that I want our friends to 
define. It certainly seems reasonable, that if any individual 
is to be tried on a charge, he should not only have the charges 
specified, but it should be specified against v/hat law he has 
transgressed. What is the use of standing up and testifying 



60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

against a man ten thousand things, until you have told us by 
what law the charges are to be tried ? Where is the law that 
proves that theft, and slavery, and lying, and murder, are 
crimes ? Just let us have it. If that can be established by 
our friends, to the understanding of the audience, we are pre- 
pared to come and to see whether the Bible is guilty of the 
crimes charged, or not ; and until that has been done, I main- 
tain that every word that has been uttered here against the 
Bible, is without any force or weight ; because it has not been 
shown that the Bible has transgressed any law. I do not 
stand here to advocate and defend every thing we find in our 
translations. I shall not stand here to defend the Bible against 
interpolations. You have charged the Bible with crimes. 
Point us to a clear law by which the Bible is to be tried, and 
we are ready to defend it. (Applause). 

Mr. Henry C. Wkight then said : I am glad that Mr. 
Storrs has brought up this subject. It is long since I have 
seen him ; and glad am I to meet him here, and to hear him 
speak as he has. He calls for the law. He shall have it. 
(Applause.) I ask my friend, if he puts his finger into the fire 
and it is burned, if he asks where the law is by which he is 
commanded to get out of the fire 1 (Applause and laughter). 
If he takes arsenic into his stomach, does he ask where the law 
is by which he is forbidden to take arsenic? It is as simple as 
a, 6, c. If a man cuts his throat, does he ask for the law that 
forbids him to cut his throat 1 If he were made a slave, would 
he stand up and ask the world for a law which forbids one 
man to make another his slave? Let that man's wife or 
child be placed on the block to be sold as a beast, and would 
he ask the question he has asked to-day — would he ask for the 
law that sanctioned such a thing % I have this to say to him 
in all frankness, that if he has not something in his bosom that 
tells him it is a sin, he is not a man; for on every heart of man 
is written by the finger of God, and incorporated into his being 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 61 

an eternal law, that forbids a man to make his brother a slave. 
It is a self-evident truth not to be reasoned about. Not many 
years since, I had a conversation with a Campbellite minister 
in Cincinnati, on this very subject. I asked him, "Is there 
any law in human nature which teaches a man that some 
things are right and some things are wrong f And he an- 
swered that there was not ; but that all ideas of right and 
wrong were educated into man from something without, and 
that there was nothing in man that could give him any sense 
of justice, of truth, or falsehood. He insisted that there was 
no such thing as an innate perception of right and wrong, of 
truth and falsehood, of good and evil. I then asked him if he 
had any thing that assured him that he existed. " To be 
sure," said he, " I have ; I am conscious of my existence, and 
that is enough for me." But I replied, tliat I had no evidences 
of his existence at all, and desired him to prove it to me; but 
he could not prove it. "Well," said I, "do you believe that 
you are a human being V " Of course," said he. " But what 
evidence have you of it ?" I asked ; but he could give no 
proof. He only knew that he was a human being because he 
felt a consciousness that he belonged to the human race. 
" But," said I, " there sits your sister with her babe in her 
arms. I take that babe and dash out its brains against the 
walls, after having been an inmate of her house for weeks, and 
after being treated kindly by all the family. Now, after I 
have perpetrated such an outrage, do you say that there is 
nothing in that mother's heart that assures her that I have 
grievously wronged her." " Nothing," said he. I looked at 
him, and said, " Are you a human being, or are you a beast ?" 
Suppose, Chairman, I dwell in your family for weeks, and 
receive your kindly sympathy and hospitality. But, in the 
darkness of midnight, I rise from my bed and enter your 
chamber of repose and stick a dagger into the hearts of each 
one of its inmates, and set the house on fire and burn you all 
up. The people all know it. Now I ask my friend, what 



62 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

does he mean when he asks for a law to prove that such an 
act is wrong 1 We are told that Jehu commanded the heads 
of seventy children of Ahab to be cut off, not because the chil- 
dren had done wrong, but solely because their father had 
done wrong. Now I ask my friend, does he wish for a law 
to decide whether that act was just or unjust 1 Sir, that act 
is pronounced to be wrong by a law written in every human 
heart. Suppose that a man in this town had deeply offended 
me, or, in other words, that he had sinned against my nature. 
I go and take his four children and cut off their heads ; not 
because they had done wrong, but because their father had 
done wrong. I wish to know if the people of Hartford want 
to know where the law is by which such an action is to be 
pronounced unjust 1 The whole community would pronounce 
me a wicked man. Suppose that an army is raised in Con- 
necticut and placed under my control, that I may go to the 
city of New York and kill every man, woman, and child. I 
go to New York and kill all the men and burn the city ; but 
bring back to Hartford the women and children and deliver 
them up to the governor and council of this city. They 
become exceeding wroth because I have not strictly obeyed 
their commands ; and the governor of the city sends out men 
to butcher all the married women and all the " males among 
the little ones," and to keep the young maidens for prostitu- 
tion. Does my friend Storrs wish to be pointed to a law that 
tells him that this is wrong — horribly wrong 1 Has he not 
something in his heart that tells him. that such an act would 
be outrageously wicked ? If you have not, my friend, what 
are you? Can any thing in God's universe make him believe 
that it is right 1 Nothing can, and yet he may read the thirty- 
first chapter of Numbers, and he will find that God is repre- 
sented as saying to Moses, "Avenge the children of Israel of 
the Midianites ;" and an army was sent out and all the Midi- 
anite men were slain, but the women and children were 
brought alive to the camp, and Moses was exceeding wroth, 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 63 

and commanded all the married women and male children to 
be slain, and delivered over to his army all the maidens for 
prostitution. Do we need to ask where is the law that tells 
you that such a transaction is wrong ? I ask every husband 
in this house : Do you need to ask where the law is that tells 
you that polygamy is wrong 1 Would you be perfectly recon- 
ciled to have your wife have two, or three, or ten husbands ? 
Can you find in your souls a single element of the doctrine 
of polygamy 1 I ask any wife in this house, Would you be 
willing that your husband should have two, or a dozen wives 
— or three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines, like 
Solomon the wise man 1 and will any body ask, Where is the 
law to settle whether polygamy is right or wrong 1 

Is it asked where is the law to decide whether slavery is 
right or wrong ? I reply (placing his hand on his heart) that 
it is here. God has written it, not on tables of stone, but in 
the human heart, and every human being comes into existence 
with a code of laws assuring him that certain things are right, 
and certain things wrong. 

Man is under certain conditions of physical and spiritual 
life and health — certain conditions of the health of body and 
soul ; and my objection to the Bible is, that certain parts of 
it, wh'ich sanction slavery, war, concubinage, prostitution, the 
death penalty, and certain other things, are opposed eternally 
and necessarily to the fixed conditions of the life and health of 
the bodies and souls of men. That book teaches us that one 
man has the right to dictate to his fellow-man what he shall 
do, and if he does not obey he can kill him. The Bible holds 
up the doctrine, that I have a right to tell my friend Green, 
for instance, what to do, and to kill him if he does not obey 
me ; and will you tell me that my friend Green, Mr. Storrs, 
or any body else, needs any other law than the instincts of 
their own souls to tell them that it always was, and always 
must be, unjust, cruel, and tyrannical for a man to assume the 
light to tell his neighbor what he shall do, and to kill him if he 



64: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

does not obey. I deny the doctrine entirely. I am under 
certain fixed conditions of life and health, and God himself can 
not justly violate these conditions, or authorize any man to 
violate them. Here we come to the very foundation of all 
things in the discussion, and my friend Storrs should be 
thanked for bringing up the question. Is there in the nature 
of man an absolute rule of right and wrong, of truth and 
falsehood 1 I maintain there is, and all I have to prove it is 
just this — I can not cut off my finger without suffering. It is 
a law of my being that I can not cut my throat without dying ; 
for God has made a sound throat essential to human life. I 
can not knock out my brains and live; for God has made 
brains necessary to human life. I do not consider it possible 
for a man to smoke or chew tobacco without doing an injury 
to his system. . I do not conceive it to be possible for a man 
to take alcohol into his system without injury to himself. So 
with regard to various other things. 

Just so with regard to the soul. There are certain things a 
man can not take into his soul without injury. I do not be- 
lieve, for instance, that it is possible for a man to be angry 
without injury to his soul. I will ask my friend Storrs if he 
was ever thoroughly angry ? and I do not know but that he has 
been, for he has been in trying situations. 

Mr. Stores — ^About forty years since. 

Mr. Wright — How did it feel 1 Did it feel good, my 
friend 1 Did you not feel heartily ashamed when you had got 
over it 1 How would you feel to have had your neighbor 
take you by the hand, then, and say to you, " Be good-natured, 
friend Storrs, and look me right in the face." 

No man can get angry without losing something of his self- 
respect. It is a law of his soul, and he can not violate that 
law of his nature, which is love, without an injury. I say the 
same of revenge. Did a man ever return evil for evil with- 
out losing self respect. If a man shakes his fist at me, and I 
shake mine at him — if he calls me a scoundrel, and I call him 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 65 

a villain, T certainly do not feel so well, when I come think of 
it, as if I had said, " Father, forgive him, for he knows not 
what he does." And I say, that when the Bible allows of 
wrath — hot wrath — it violates the law of man's nature. 

When Moses was up in the mountains, and the Lord was 
writing out the Ten Commandments, there was heard a shout 
of the people below, and all at once the Lord starts up and 
says,'" Get out of my way, Moses, and let my wrath wax hot 
against the Israelites, that I may consume them, and I will 
make of thee a great nation ;" But Moses says to God, 
*' Lord, don't do it. You will only make yourself ridiculous 
in the eyes of the Egyptians. Just have a little respect to 
yourself — do have a little patience. Don't kill them all off." 
He appealed to the Lord's ambition to prevent his killing the 
people. " Well," says the Lord, " I guess I won't kill them ; 
but I tell you what I will do. Go, you, and gird on your 
sword, and get the sons of Levi to help you, and command 
them to put every man his sword by his side, and go in and 
out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every 
man his brother, and every man his companion, and every 
man his neighbor. And Moses did so, and there fell of the 
people that day about three thousand men, and the wrath of 
the Lord was turned away." Not only is wrath here allowed 
to Moses, but the wrath of the Lord is represented as waxing 
hot. I say that wrath is contrary to the fixed law of the human 
soul. Yet the Bible attributes it to God. The Bible errs. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the existence of a God ; and I 
would say that God is to me an essential law of my being — 
a want or a necessity of my nature, just as much as food is, or 
air, or light. I can no more be without a God, than I can be 
without air and food ; and to my mind it is ridiculous to talk 
about atheists. We may be atheists here (pointing to his 
head), but never here (laying his hand on his heart). God is 
not logic — he is love. He is not to be found in the head, but 
in the heart — deep down in the inmost of the human souJ, 



QQ PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

where love dwells. I can not be without the desire of immor- 
tality any more than I can be without air and light ; and I 
believe in it, not because I see it taught in a book. I never 
go to a book to learn that there is a God, or to learn that I 
am to live in the great future. I feel it here (laying his hand 
on his breast), and I always felt it here ever since I was con- 
scious of a moral existence. 

Here, then, is the law, fixed and eternal, and God -him- 
self has no right to interfere with its natural functions. I 
wish to repeat it emphatically, that I do not believe in a God 
that claims a right to interfere with the laws of my nature — 
to suspend them for an instant, unless he changes my nature. 
When he makes me into something else from what I am now, 
then he can put me under other laws. It has been the false 
teaching of a false church that all rights belong to God, and 
that nothing but duties belong to men. Now, I believe that 
there are rights that belong to men, and God can no more 
justly interfere with my rights as a man, than I can justly 
interfere with his rights as God. There is a law stamped on 
the human heart, and in my opinion that is the only true 
revelation that God ever gives to any human being, and that 
revelation he has given to every one alike ; and that is the 
law by which I would test the Bible. 

The Rev. Mr. Turner rose to request that some definite 
miderstanding might be had as to the length of time to be oc- 
cupied by the speakers in favor of the Bible. He thought 
that the opponents of the Bible having occupied thus far the 
most of the time, there was not an equal opportunity given to 
the other side of the question. He would like to know by 
what rules the Convention was to be governed. 

The Chairman remarked that the Convention was to be 
governed by the common rules of conventions. The gentle- 
man (Mr. Turner) seemed to prefer a complaint which he (the 
Chairman) thought without foundation, inasmuch as the 



HAKTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 67 

speakers on the side of the Bible had just as good an oppor- 
tunity as those on the other side to take time for the full ex- 
pression of their views. His wishes were that the gentlemen 
in favor of the Bible should occupy, at least, 'one half of the 
time of the Convention. If they do not (said he), the fault 
will be theirs, not ours. 

H. C. Wright then offered the following resolution : 

Resolved — That after this evening's session, each speaker he re- 
stricted in time to forty minutes, and after each speech, persons wish- 
ing to oppose the yiews of the last speaker, should have the precedence 
to the floor. [Adopted.] 

Mr. Parker Pillsbury then rose and said : I rise to an- 
swer the question of my friend, Storrs. If it is not worthy 
of an answer, I hardly know of one that can be. I am glad 
to see Mr. Storrs here. I have known something of him for 
several years. He is the man to whom the only thing of the 
kind ever happened since the earlier days of Christianity — 
that while on his knees, in prayer, he was seized by a sheriff, 
and brought before a magistrate to answer to the charge of 
being a '•''common brawler f^ and his brawling was, that he 
was on his knees invoking the aid of God in behalf of his 
labors for the oppressed, and it has been a matter of a good 
deal of pleasure to me, to find that his course has ever since 
been consistent with the position he then took as it regards 
the evil of slavery. 

It seems to me that one friend, to-night, has answered this 
question sufficiently ; and I have not risen to answer more 
perfectly, but only to give a corroborative authority. I 
think, with my friend, that law is universal. God never made 
a blade of grass, even, which is not as much under law as is 
the highest seraph that burns before his throne. There is not 
a flower that dots your beautiful gardens in this city, like 
angels' finger prints, that is not also under law ; and if God 
has placed angels and flowers under law, so it seems to me 



bo PROCEEDIlirGSOFTHE 

he has also placed inan under law — man in his body and man 
in his soul. The body is under law, and violations of its 
laws are visited with a penalty, and there is no atoning sacri 
fice, no expiatory blood, that can remove the penalty. " The 
body that sinneth, it shall die." So, in like manner, there is 
a law applying to the mind — that most beautiful flower of 
God's own formation — that flower which is only germinated 
here as in a hot-house, to be transplanted to the gardens of 
Paradise to bloom forever — yes, that spirit is under law, and 
needs nothing to demonstrate what is that law, or from whence 
it came. Divinity i6 stamped upon it. The law that governs 
it is written upon it by the finger of the divine power that 
created it. 

We who have assembled here in this Convention are 
charged with a degree of infidelity almost unparalleled in 
the annals of human depravity. There was once a Hart- 
ford Convention that stamped this place with notoriety. 
Here is another Hartford Convention that will, perhaps, be 
remembered ages after that one shall have been forgotten. 
There are momentous questions to be discussed here, and I 
desire that they shall be discussed in a calm, deliberative 
manner, and in so far as we can agree with those who are 
opposed to us, I think it is well that we should agree. The 
church and the ministry are, of course, on the other side of 
the question from us ; because this Convention proposes to 
call in question the principles upon which the Bible rests. 
We propose to go down and strike upon its underpinning 
stones, and see if they are sound, secure, and will stand the 
tests of time, the shocks of eternity. 

I think it well that we should not disagree with our oppo- 
nents, when we might just as well agree. If they have foun- 
dations upon which we can build the superstructure of our 
faith, let us do so. 1 have here a work, coming from the 
very highest authority, which, I think, answers the question 
proposed by my friend Storrs, in part at least. The book 



HARTFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 69 

comes from no less a source than And over Theological Sem- 
inary, from Professor Stuart; and his department in the 
seminary instruction was just that department which should 
give his authority in this Convention the greater respect. In 
this book (entitled a " Critical History and Defense of the 
Old Testament Canon"), on page 23, it seems to me he an- 
swers the question most forcibly and beautifully, for he says, 
" The demand of intellect and reason must be met, in order 
to satisfy a reasonable being." And again on page 352 he 
further declares, " The Bible is a book that, we may take it 
for granted, was made to satisfy the intellect and enlightened 
reason, as well as devotional feeling." And still again, on 
pages 410, 411, he says emphatically, "If there is any book 
in all the world, addressed to the sober reason and judgment 
of men, that book is the Bible. It is written by men, ad- 
dressed to men, and designed for men. Of course, it adopts 
a human and intelligible manner of address throughout. * * 
* * The Scriptures, written in any other manner, could be 
of little profit to us. And when we see methods of inter- 
pretation applied to them which no other book will bear, and 
which would hold any one up to scorn if he should adopt 
them in explaining a classic, how can it be expected that the 
understanding and reason will not distrust them, and sooner 
or later be sure to revolt against them*?" And finally, on 
page 363, the Professor affirms, " When all is done and 
said, however, the understanding and reason remain to be 
satisfied. Nothing will stand that does not compose these to 
peace." 

It seems to me that here we are fully agreed with Andover 
Theological Seminary, and it is only to this test that I wish 
to bring the Bible. I have come to this Convention as a 
learner — I have come to listen to men whose wisdom and 
knowledge are far superior to mine ; and I shall sit at their 
feet with pleasure, and shall only arise to speak when I think 
there is a vacuum that I can fill j and I will say, as I have 



70 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

been speaking of Nature, that I agree with Nature in one 
thing — I abhor a vacuum. (Applause and laughter.) 

Mr. H. C. Wright then said he would offer for discussion 
a resolution which he thought would call up the question asked 
by Mr. Storrs, as to the law by which the Bible was to be 
tried : 

Resolved — That God has given to man a rule of life, by -which if he 
lives, he will be just what God designed him to be, and that law is in- 
corporated in the physical, intellectual, and spiritual nature of every 
human being. 

Mr. Parker Pillsbury offered for discussion the following 
resolution : 

Resolved — That if men are to prove all things, and only to hold fast 
that which is good, then any Bible or religion. Church or ministry, 
that defends or apologizes for slavery, war, oppressive governments, 
or any form of despotism or tyranny, secular or spiritual, govern- 
mental or individual, is to be specially examined and discussed, and 
approved or condemned according as those sins or systems which they 
defend shall be found at variance with the nature of man, and destruct- 
ive of the happiness of the universe. 

On motion, the Convention then adjourned to half-past 
seven o'clock, p.m. 



FIRST DAY— EVENING SESSION. 

June 2d. 
The Convention having been called to order, and Mr. Joseph 
Barker having made a brief recapitulation of the arguments 
presented in the preceding sessions, 

Rev. Mr. Turner arose to speak against the resolutions 
oflfered just before the adjournment, and said : 



HARTFOEDBIBLE CONVENTION. 71 

Mr. Chairman, in rising to discuss this subject, I do not 
stand before this Convention with a feeling of bigotry. I do 
not stand here to advocate the doctrines of the Bible unless 
there is good reason that the Bible should be sustained ; nor 
would I, in broaching this subject, feel that it is below us to 
consider it in public debate. If the Bible is a good book, it 
is good enough to be talked about before the people ; and if 
the Bible is a bad book, and it can be proved to be. bad, the 
people are the very persons that ought to know it. (Applause.) 
Some who are present know very well that the views I enter- 
tain of public discussion are liberal, and I am far from sup- 
posing that every man who calls in question the Bible or its 
truthfulness is a designing man or a knave. I have for years 
been convinced that many of the closest thinkers in the com- 
munity have been made skeptical as to the truthfulness of the 
Bible from the fact that the Bible, in the hands of the clergy, 
has been forced to prove doctrines that are not taught within 
its sacred leaves ; hence I am willing, as an individual, that 
the truthfulness of the Bible should be discussed ; but still, 
with my brother Storrs, 1 must insist upon having the law de- 
fined by which the Bible is to be tried. The Bible has pre- 
ferred against it, by the resolutions which have been offered 
here, the most solemn and grave charges — charges which, if 
true, ought to excommunicate it from the community. Now, 
if the Bible is to be proved guilty, we insist upon having 
the law defined by which we are to decide. We are told 
that the law by which it is to be judged is within every hu- 
man breast, in the very constitution of the human soul — 
that reason and conscience are to become the standard by 
which the Bible is to be tried upon the charges now preferred 
against it. 

^ If this is to be the law by which the Bible is to be tried — 
if in the mind of man there is a law of right and wrong of 
sufficient authority to allow us to bring the Bible to it, then 
that law should be universal — it should be found in all human 



72 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

'-^ 

nature; for every mind, every human soul is called upon 
under such circumstances, to render a verdict or to bear a part 
in erecting the standard by which the Bible is to be tried. 
Let us for a moment consider this matter and see if such a 
law is implanted in every human soul — a law that is not de- 
pendent on outward information and external instruction, as 
we were told that it is not. If it is universal and inherent in 
the nature of man, then we shall expect to find that law as 
really existing in heathen lands as we find it in America. 
Mark that Hindoo mother, with her infant in her arms, on 
the banks of the Ganges, hurling it to the monsters of the 
deep, and see her frantically exultant that she has by this sac- 
rifice pleased her God ! Will any contend that that mother 
does right ? If there is a law of right and wrong in the hu- 
man mind, how is it that this mother becomes so mistaken as 
to suppose that this act was a most solemn duty. If there 
is a law of right and wrong implanted in the human mind, 
how is it that the Hindoo widow throws herself upon the 
funeral pile of her husband that she may be consumed, thus 
robbing her children of their last and dearest hopes ? If there 
is such a law in the human mind, why is it that all the cruel- 
ties of slavery are practiced? I believe that there is a feeling 
in the human heart that condemns the cruelties of slavery, 
and I am heartily glad that it is increasing ; but, sir, why 
does it increase 1 There is a source from which it springs ; 
but what is that source ■? Is it the human heart ? If so, how 
is it that the slave-driver stands and draws his murderous 
whip without seeming to think that it is wrong 1 If this law 
is universal, how is it that the task-master, when he urges on 
the slave beyond his powers of endurance, does not feel that 
he is doing wrong ? It is because there is no law within his 
heart, telling him that it is wrong. We see nations who go 
to war with other nations — we see«army arrayed against army 
upon the field of battle. If we go and talk with the rulers 
of those nations and officers of those armies, we shall find 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 73 

that both sides will justify their course. Why do such things 
occur, if there is planted in the human soul a definite law of 
right doing ! Why does it not appear to both parties alike ? 
If this law of life is so universal, why is it that on both sides 
they do not discover what is right, and like men knowing what 
is right, abandon the wrong? 
^ If a law of right and wrong is implanted in the human 
mind — if the human reason and judgment, the standard by 
which^C- Bible _is to be tried, is so reliable, how is it that in 
communities reared under the same circumstances and instruc- 
tion, persons, differ so much in their judgments? Does the ; 
law of right tell my neighbor one thing, and me another? V 
Does the law of right tell one portion of the community one /^ 
thing, and another portion another thing ? or is it a fact that -^ ^^ 
men differ from each other in proportion to the dissimilarity '7 * 
of their mental organizations ? I need not stand here and 
repeat the truth, so well established, that men differ in their 
judgment, which is accounted for from the fact that they dif- 
fer in the construction of their brains. You take two heads 
organized precisely alike, and give them the same instruction, 
and their minds will be of the same nature — of the same 
mold ; but we do not find two craniums alike ; and there- 
fore we do not find two minds alike. If the Bible is to be 
tested as to its worth by human judgments, then we will have 
as many minds in regard to the Bible, taken as a whole, as 
you have heads in this congregation, or in the world. This 
fact shows that there is somewhere a " higher law," to which 
all tlifiaa..54ai'led organisms must bow, and be in_siilHniss^^^ 
Tliere must be somewhere a standard for mind — a standard 
for morality existing somewhere. If there is a standard of 
morality in the human mind, how is it that we have these 
charges preferred against the Bible? If organisms are all 
alike, and my friend judges from his organism that polygamy 
can not be correct, how happens it that any men with the 
same law in their hearts ever did judge that polygamy was 

4 



74 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

correct? If this standard is alike in all minds — if there is a 
'' thought of God" thus dwelling in every human soul, it has 
not changed ; so that v/hat was right in Solomon's day would 
be right now. 

We may despair of settling this question of the truthfulness 
of the Bible, even according to the showing of my friends 
"who have spoken on the other side, by any standard that is 
erected in the human mind, for all men have a right to judge 
in this matter as well as we. Why, I am told, or at least I 
read from the call of this Convention, that there is a variety 
of opinion among those persons who do not accept the Bible 
as a revelation from God. It would be very strange, so far 
as their intellectual development is concerned, if there were 
not a vast variety of opinion. I venture to say, by a mere 
cursory examination of their heads (pointing to Mr. Wright 
and his coadjutors), by merely looking at them, that there is 
a vast variety of opinions, of judgments. (Applause, and 
cries of hear, hear.) Could we leave the question to them, 
should we be sure of a unanimous verd-ict ? I venture to say 
we should not get such a verdict. But if there is a reliable 
standard in the human mind, why not ? How is it that there 
are so many differences in theology as spoken of by my friend 
(Mr. Barker), if there is a sufficient standard in the human 
mind to judge the Bible by? (Applause.) In a word, does 
it not appear from the very fact that there is such a variety of 
mind which you see existing everywhere, that there must be 
some standard above the human judgment, else " where doc- 
tors disagree, who shall decide ?" [A Voice — Each one for 
himself] " Each one ?" Then we shall have just as many 
sentiments as there are individuals, and then, I ask (adverting 
to Mr. Davis and his teachings) how shall we ever get a " har- 
monial brotherhood ?" (Applause and laughter.) I have been 
accustomed to consider harmony as a perfect commingling 
of sounds, and if you apply it metaphorically to theories, it 
must be understood to signify unanimity of thought, concord 



HAETI^OED BIBLE CONVENTION-. 75 

of judgment ; but how shall we ever have such harmony as 
long as men differ so much as we know them to differ? I 
have no objections, after this question of law has been settled, 
to coming right to the Bible ; but I deem it to be fair for both 
sides of the question that the law by which the Bible is to be 
tried should be first settled. So I wish to keep this point be- 
fore the mind, and to have it remembered, that if the human 
mind is to be that law, one thing is settled, and that is, that 
we need not discuss the questions proposed by the call for the 
consideration of the Convention ; for we have them settled al- 
ready. Every individual in this audience now holds that 
opinion which he would consider already sanctioned by that 
law. But is it argued that those minds who accept the Bible 
as divinely inspired may be changed ? Very well ; if men 
can be changed one way, they may be changed the other, and 
the standard law by which it is proposed to try the Bible is 
shown to be vascilating. This discussion has come up in a dif- 
ferent form from that which I anticipated ; however, I have no 
fault to find, only so far as the nature of the objections are con- 
cerned. The objections are of such a nature that they do not 
admit of a direct handling. If the question could be brought 
before the people in a more condensed and correct form, I 
should be happy to meet them ; but as it is, we can not ex- 
pect a satisfactory discussion ; the more important points will 
not thus be reached. In this I speak as an individual ; for I 
am the representative of no party, and I hold myself ready 
at any time to be converted to any thing that is truth. Truth 
is immutable, as has been said to-night, and all I seek is the 
truth, and when I know any thing to be true, to it my heart, 
my being shall bow. (Loud applause.) 

In filing in objections against the Bible in respect of its 
teachings, of things it commands, and things it countenances, 
no regard has been paid to the time, the place, the circum- 
stances under which the things claimed to be wrong have 
been done and countenanced. If, indeed, the Bible does 



76 PEOOEEDINGS OF THE 

countenance things it has been charged with countenancing, 
it ought to be discredited ; but it seems to me that one great 
feature of the Bible has been overlooked, and that, too, by the 
chairman (Mr. Barker), who not only seems to have read a 
good deal about the Bible, but a great deal in it. It should 
be remembered that the Bible was not all given in a day — 
that it was designed to be adapted to the natures, the religious 
wants of mankind in all ages of the world — and is given with 
reference to God's advancing plan in the world. 

If the whole Bible was applicable to the state of affairs now, 
it could not have been applicable to the state of the world 
centuries ago, simply because the state of affairs is now very 
different from what they were then. The Bible is adapted to 
the whole economy of God's government in the earth. We 
have in the Bible three kinds of truth, and in so speaking I 
use my own classifications. We have historical truth, in which 
we are taught by example ; present truth, which informs us 
of ourselves, our natures and the relations which we sustain 
to, and the position we should occupy in, the moral govern- 
ment of God ; and we have always had, and shall have till that 
Bible winds up, prophetic truth, which presents the future. 
Now, take that book, laid out from paradise lost to paradise 
restored, and consider it as applicable to any one generation 
alone, and it is not difficult to understand that men should 
find a great deal of fault with it ; portions of it could not thus 
apply harmoniously. We have for many years believed that 
the Bible was the standard to which every man should bow. 
This, our position, has been denied and condemned ; so now 
we want to know by what law the claims of the Bible are to 
be tried. We insist on this point, for when that question is 
settled we shall have found by what law you and I must bo 
tried; for there must be a standard. (Applause.) 

Mr. George Stores — The resolution brought forward at 
the opening of this Convention arraigned the Bible before 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. YT 

some court, and charged it with certain crimes. I would again 
ask, if a person be brought before a court, charged with 
crimes, if it is not right that the law should be defined by 
which he is to be tried — a law by which it can be judged 
whether he is a criminal or not] In reply to this question, 
my friend Mr. Wright — very prettily indeed — appeals to our 
feelings. " The law is planted in here (touching his breast) 
— in the constitution of our nature." Is that the law by 
which the Bible is to be tried, and its morality or irreligion 
to be tested ? Is that the law by which this book is to be 
proved a wicked thing, or to be justified 1 Is the Bible to be 
tried by this law in our nature, which says that murder, theft, 
slavery, etc., are wrong*? I understand that the position which 
my friend (Mr. Wright) has taken is, after all, that the Bible 
is to be tried by natural religion. 

Mr. Wright — Yes, by natural religion. 

Mr. Storrs — I ask you then to prove that God is possess- 
ed of a solitary moral perfection by natural religion. Tell 
me how, by natural religion, you are going to demonstrate 
but that there are more than a million gods in the universe? 
I am glad that he has said that it was natural religion. We 
come now to the point — we have something tangible. It is 
natural religion by which we are to try the Bible. All that 
you can prove by natural religion, with reference to supreme 
powers is, that there may be one God or many, and that the 
God or gods possess intelligence and power ; and, for aught 
that you can know by natural religion, this God, or these 
gods, may have just the character which it has been contended 
by our opponents the God of the Bible possesses. Does 
natural religion teach you that God is good, when he suffers 
so much misery, and woe, and war, and slavery, and blood, 
and sickness, and death, filling graveyards with human be- 
ings 1 Now, where is your good God ? Do not touch the 
Bible — stand off from that — let revelation alone. Just take 
your natural religion, and you can not prove that God is 



78 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

good ; and for aught you know, therefore, he is just such a 
character as sanctions war, slavery, polygamy, etc. I see no 
possibility of avoiding this conclusion. By natural religion 
how can you know but that it is right that God should de 
stroy one clUss of men by another 1 How do you know that 
it is wrong for one nation to rise up against another nation, 
and to commit depredations and destroy one another by war*? 
How do you know that it is wrong to practice polygamy ? 
How do you know that it is wrong for God himself to inter- 
fere with my rights as a man, having created mel What 
does natural religion teach you aboat the animal creation"? 

See your neighbor take the calf and cut its throat before 
the eyes of its dam. She moans — she feels bad, don't she 1 
Ah, it is a sin to take the calf and cut its throat — is it not ? 
But natural religion says it is right — you want it to eat; but 
perhaps my friend Wright will say it is wrong. (Laughter.) 
Again, a man finds a swarm of bees in a tree, and cutting 
down the tree, he takes the bees and puts them in his bee- 
house, and tells them to work for him. They work all sum- 
mer long ; but finally the man comes along who says that he 
is the " slaveholder,'" and that he wants the honey. He lights 
his match of brimstone under them, destroys their life, and 
takes the honey. He is a robber ! Does natural religion 
say so % Oh, no ; but they are inferior to me. Indeed, sir, 
how inferior you are to God ! How do you know but that 
the God that made you has a right to command you to be 
slaughtered % Does natural religion tell you that he has not % 
No. The fact is, that natural religion can prove nothing only 
that there is a God — whether one or many can not be deter- 
mined — and that that God possesses power and intelligence ; 
but can not lead us one step farther in determining his char- 
acter. Hence, I say, that the rule by which it is claimed 
that this Bible should be tried, is a defective one, and that 
the Bible can not be tested by it. But perhaps I shall hear 
some one saying. You are not going to compare us to the 



HAKTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 79 

lower and inferior animals '? But, sir, what are you but an 
animal ? I was glad to hear my friend Wright say, that if 
he did not have any brains, he would have no life; but take 
away his brains and he would be dead, just a^ dead as any 
other animal. Now, I ask, if natural religion allows us to 
enslave the lower animals — and a great portion of the com- 
munity take their life out of mere sport — and if the law of 
natural religion was the same and unchangeable, if it would 
not condemn every man that takes the life of the meanest 
insect that crawls upon the earth ? Our friends have been 
building upon a foundation that has been laid for them by 
some theologians, that man has an immortal soul — that he is 
a part of God. Whatever else may be charged upon the 
Bible, this can not. Man is only an animal till there is a de- 
velopment of moral powers by the application of a moral 
law. What, a part of God ! Why, sir, if man is a part of 
God there is no such thing as sin ; for sin being a departure 
from God — a violation of some law, there can be no such 
thing as sin, unless a man should deny himself. Man, a part 
of God ! No, sir, that is an assumption of the human heart 
in its pride. They would be as gods. I maintain that man" 
by his creation is only an animal of the highest order, and 
capable of higher development than any other animal ; but 
as to his having an immortal soul, there is no such thing 
taught in the Bible ; the-refore the Bible is clear of that 
charge. Whatever else they shall claim is taught by the 
Bible, it never taught that man is possessed of an immortal 
soul. (Cries of Hear, hear.) 

A great many complain because Adam should have been 
placed in a state of trial ; but if he had not been, he never 
could have risen above the state of an animal, for holiness is 
not a creation, but a development ; therefore the conditions 
for such a development were absolutely necessary for the de- 
■ velopment of Adam — for enabling him to rise in the scale of 
being and to become a partaker of the Divine nature, if faithful 



80 PROCEEDIIS-GS OF THE 

to his God. His very trial was, therefore, on the part of his 
Creator, an act of mercy and of kindness. That trial was to 
develop the moral character of Adam, which, if in harmony 
with God, was to entitle man to an endless existence ; but he 
was informed that if it was not in harmony he should surely 
die. When we inquire the meaning of death — what it is to 
die, we must, answer, that it is to return back to that state 
from which man came. What, to be annihilated 1 Yes, sir, 
to be annihilated. " But," says one, " there is nothing that 
can be annihilated." But I ask if he who created can not 
annihilate, if he will 1 The only question is in regard to his 
will. It is said that nothing can be annihilated ; but I ask 
the objector if he means to say that God Himself can anni- 
hilate nothing'? Do you not preach from day to day 
that God made all things out of nothing ; and yet do you 
deny that that Being who created all things out of nothing can 
return them to the state of nothing — that is, to annihilate, 
them 

Why, sir, I can annihilate some things. Bring me a glass 
globe. Can I not grind it to powder and annihilate it as a 
globe ? You say the particles of matter remain. But does 
the globe as a glohe remain 1 Manifestly it does not ; it is 
annihilated. So man when annihilated will not exist as man, 
whatever becomes of the elements of which he was com- 



Adam was told by the Creator that in case he did not obey 
the law given to him he should return to the dust from which 
he cjime. Now, sir, do you tell me that natural religion 
teaches a contrary doctrine — the doctrine of the immortality 
of the soul ? Can natural religion point into the future world ? 
If so, what means all the speculation among heathen phi- 
losophers about the immortality of the human soul 1 I ask 
what does it mean, if natural religion can carry you to another 
world? No, sir, natural religion can do no such thing. It re- 
mains for revelation to bring forward and to develop a future 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 81 

world ; and if it remains for revelation to do it, it remains for 
that revelation to state the terms upon which the Creator will 
give us a part in the future world. 

I must refer to a few remarks that were made by my friend 
from Ohio (Mr. Barker), in bringing forward his objections 
to the morality of the Bible, in that it sanctioned various 
wrongs. Take, for example, slavery ; he left the impression 
upon our minds, by his remarks, that the Bible sanctioned such 
slavery as we are accustomed to contemplate — such slavery 
as American slavery. Now, sir, I deny it altogether. [The 
speaker at this point made a short comparison between the 
system of service sanctioned by the Scriptures and the Amer- 
ican system, remarking that the Jews were forbidden to 
return a slave to his master, in case he escaped from his mas- 
ter ; as his leaving his master was evidence of hard usage, 
and that death was the penalty for stealing a man or having 
him in his possession after he was stolen — quotations from 
the Scriptures to this purport being made. On the occasion 
of a remark made by Mr. Pillsbury, the Chairman expressed 
a wish that speakers should not be interrupted, but that per- 
sons should take notes in silence of any thing they might 
wish to remark upon at some other time, when Mr. Storrs 
remarked that he had made remarks in a desultory manner, 
not having taken notes ; for that seemed too much like 'dis- 
trusting the " law of nature," the nohle brain ! (Laughter.) ] 

The Bible has been complained of on account of its teach- 
ings concerning women. They read to you, on the one side, 
passages telling the duties of the wife, but they read nothing 
prescribing the duties of the husband. Paul commanded that 
husbands should love their wives as they love themselves. 
It is a dreadful thing for a woman to be loved by her husband 
as he loves himself! (Laughter). I venture to say that there 
is not a woman of good sense in this house that will not risk 
the consequences, if she can get a husband that loves her as 
he loves himself. 

4* 



82 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

The old theological notion of there being infants in hell no*- 
a span long has been adverted to. Suppose we throw the 
Bible away and do not let a ray of its light shine upon us, 
and I ask you where infants go to when they die ? They go 
down into the grave, don't they 1 Then all the infants that 
die go into hell — your natural-religion hell (applause and 
laughter) ; and you can not demonstrate by your natural re- 
ligion but that every infant goes into hell. The infant comes 
into the world a suffering being, travels on in pain and suffer- 
ing, and drops into the grave. Now, where is your natural 
religion to comfort you. " Oh, I guess it has a soul that 
goes off in progression." " I guess !'' /guess it is all guess- 
work. It is the Bible that brings to our view another state, 
and that by a resurrection through Jesus from the dead. 

The question in regard to the Bible is not, in fact, whether 
that Bible is a revelation, but it is whether it is a faithful 
history of revelations and certain transactions connected with 
those revelations ; and therefore the whole question turns on 
the credibility of the Bible witnesses, and whatever charges 
you may bring against hireling priests, these witnesses are to 
to be judged in their testimony, according to the motives under 
which they may be reasonably supposed to have acted ; and if 
it appears that their whole course was one of self-sacrifice and 
pain — that they jeoparded their very lives in giving their testi- 
mony, and nothing can be shown to the contrary — then you 
must accept them as credible witnesses. Further, when it is 
shown that this suffering and trial was foretold them by their 
beloved Master, there is no reason that can be given for suppos- 
ing that they were designing men — men that would palm off 
on the world a falsehood. So if we go back to the Jewish 
priesthood — who may be considered as Bible witnesses — do 
we find them men of selfishness 1 Did they frame those laws ? 
(turning to Mr. Wright.) 

Mr. Wright — Yes. 

Mr. Storks — Let us see whether they were knaves or not. 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 83 

Is it any where evinced in these laws ? Did they (the laws) 
reserve any portion of the land for the priests 1 

Mr. Wright, interrupting Mr. Storrs, said — They reserve 
to the priests one-tenth of all other property. 

Mr. Storrs — Does it look like knavery, I say, to cut them 
selves off from all possessions in Israeli Yet the people 
were to give them only one-tenth of their crops, etc., and where 
was the law compelling the people to give it, if they would 
not do it voluntarily I [Some interruption being made by 
some, the Chairman called them to order; and Mr. Storrs, 
supposing that he was called to order, left the stand, until after 
some little colloquy between several persons, and until after 
he was informed of his misapprehension of the Chairman's re- 
marks, when he returned and proceeded in his speech.] 

Now, I say that the priests did not make the laws, and I 
call upon my friend Wright to prove that they did ; and if 
they did, they made just such lav/s as knavish priests would 
not have miade — they made a law to prevent their holding 
possessions in Israel. They made a law by which it was 
made a voluntary affair with the people to pay them one- 
tenth of their crops, etc., or not ; and there was no law com- 
pelling them to pay this tithe. 

A Voice interrupting — The people were not to have any 
wine the next year in case they did not pay this tithe. 

Mr. Storrs — I ask if the priests themselves caused that 
there should be no wine the next year, after the failure of the 
people to pay tithe, or did He who caused the herb of the 
field to grow, cause that there should be no wine ? Were 
you to give knavish priests now the power to make laws to 
regulate their own salaries, do you think that they would ex- 
clude themselves from having inheritances among the people, 
and not make any provision for compelling the people to pay 
tithes 1 

A Voice — No, they would pay more attention to their 
bread and butter. (Laughter.) 



84: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mr. Stores — No, indeed ; but such was the fact in regard to 
the Jewish priesthood : thej were excluded from having in- 
heritances among the people, and there were no provisions 
made for enforcing the payment of the tithes — there v/ere no 
pains or penalties to be inflicted upon the people in case of 
their failure to pay. Now, I ask, if such a code of laws gives 
any evidence of having been gotten up by a corrupt prie«st- 
hbod? No ; there is every evidence of the purity and good- 
ness of their motives. So with reference to the witnesses of 
the New Testament. You say of a corrupt priesthood now-a- 
days, that they keep a good look-out for their bread and but- 
ter ; but they sacrificed all — being stoned, whipped, and im- 
prisoned, and were assured by their Master that they should 
come to a violent death. They went out in the face of pub- 
lic opinion — against a corrupt priesthood — against a corrupt 
world, civil and ecclesiastical, with their lives in their hands, 
and proclaimed the great truths and facts of the New Testa- 
ment. And what are these great facts? Why, the great 
fact — the solar beam of the New Testament is, a resurrection 
from the dead through our Lord Jesus Christ — that God has 
given unto us eternal life, and that this life is in his Son, and 
not in ourselves. Amid all their trials these witnesses main- 
tained their integrity to the end. But you say that Peter 
denied his Lord, and cursed and swore. Well, I suppose he 
was a little afraid of the face of clay, as we are sometimes ; 
and who can wonder at it, when we think that we are pos- 
sessed of human nature which shrinks at suffering ? Why do 
you not tell us, that when Jesus turned and looked upon 
Peter, that he went out and wept bitterly ? Would it not 
answer your purpose % It would not, would it ? (Applause.) 
Does the Bible any where say, that any man on earth is ever 
so good that he may not sin in the hour of temptation ? No ; 
if it did, this might be brought up as an excellent thing 
against the truth and inspiration of the Bible ; but it goes on 
the very ground that we are liable to sin, and that God has 



HA ET FORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 85 

promised that if we repent, and use those means or institu- 
tions which he has appointed, we may be forgiven our sins 
and be restored to his fiivor. And so Peter did, and on the 
day of Pentecost the fear of man was taken away from him. 
He will not deny his Lord now. 

" No, to be sure, but he will dissemble." 

The flesh which you see, which must be kept " under," is 
the source of sin ; and in the hour of temptation the best man 
may be led, in view of pain and suffering, to commit a sin 
which, on reflection, he would stand up strong against, if he 
has the principle of holiness in his heart ; and this was the 
case of Peter. 

These witnesses went forward testifying to the truth, 
namely, that Jesus is the Son of God — that Jesus died — that 
God raised him from the dead — that he ascended into heaven 
— that he is coming again to judge the world, and to give to 
his people eternal life. They preached Jesus and a resurrec- 
tion from the dead, and they went forward in their testimony, 
faithful unto the end ; and, mark you, they did not, as hypo- 
crites and dissemblers do, conceal their sins. Dissemblers 
and hypocrites do not tell their sins. No, no, sir, they cover 
up their sins. The New Testament witnesses did not cover 
up theirs, as is evinced by the very fact that we have a 
knowledge of them ; and that is another argument in favor of 
the credibility of the witnesses. All these witnesses testified 
to facts and truths which they promulgated to the world at 
the hazard of their lives. As we go forward in this Conven- 
tion, I have much to say, if I am permitted to say it. (Cries 
of hear, hear, and applause.) 

Mr. J. K. Ingalls then said — It is sometimes the case, that 
when a party is to be tried, instead of pleading the justice of 
their cause, they question the jurisdiction of the court and the 
constitutionality of the law. It is behind this refuge that the 
friends of inspiration have taken their stand. 



86 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Now the ground which I shall assume is this : before you 
have taken the position that one thing is natural religion and 
another thing is revealed religion, you must prove that the 
Bible, with all its inspiration, with all its history, with all its 
revelations, is not in the domain of natural religion. 

I believe and claim that the Bible is inspired. I do not 
believe that those men who suffered for the cause of truth and 
goodness were idle priests and designing men. I believe that 
they were true to the Spirit of God working in their inmost 
hearts. This position is necessary, or else we cay know 
nothing of inspiration. I take the position, that either the 
human mind has capacities which are not only enabled and 
qualified to judge of truth and of what is right, but that it has 
capabilities for inspiration. If you deny that the human 
mind has no such capabilities, then you simply say, in so 
many words, that the Bible itself is a fallacy ; because 
every word there penned, every truth there inscribed, was 
given to this world by, and through the instrumentality, the 
inspiration of the human. Well, say you, men were in- 
spired in ages by-gone. Do you know that they are not in- 
spired now ? You insist that in our use of the Bible we shall 
admit that there is a law of progress in reference to the in- 
spiration of the Bible, and yet you say that there is no law of 
progress pertaining to the human soul. Either the human 
mind is capable of inspiration — either it is to sit in judgment 
upon that book, or else that book is a fallacy and a fable. If 
the inspiration of that book is established, then you establish 
the capability of the human soul for inspiration (cries of hear, 
hear) ; and you can not establish one, it seems to me, without 
the other. 

It has been said that those great principles which are the 
foundation of all that is good in Christianity — the great doc- 
trine of the fatherhood of God and the fraternity of all men — 
rest upon the Bible ; but I claim that they do not rest upon 
the laws of Moses, they do not rest upon the authority of any 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 87 

book ; they rest upon the authority of the great Jehovah in- 
scribed in the human soul ; and I ask, was not Jesus himself 
the first teacher of natural religion when he taught those 
great and ennobling truths by appealing to the untiring testi- 
monies of nature. (Hear, hear.) He taught his disciples to 
return good for evil ; not because Moses said so — not because 
He said so, but because their Father in heaven maketh his sun 
to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth his rain on the 
just and on the unjust. 

I choose to regard these testimonies of the past experiences 
of our race as the storehouses of the human mind, wherein 
are deposited the treasures, thoughts, and experience of past 
ages. We do not want to throw that book away ; we want 
simply to cull the good from the bad, and not impose upon 
the human soul a book which has its imperfections, and say 
to that soul, As you reverence God, you must receive this, and 
receive the whole of it ; and it is upon this point that this 
whole question turns : whether the human soul is superior to 
all things else, or whether a book shall have control over the 
human spirit ; it is, in flict, whether man is the rightful ruler 
of this world, or whether it is some ideal which the ages of 
the past have furnished us. 

When my friend (Rev. Mr. Turner) was speaking of the 
progressive principles that he desired to have applied to the 
plan of God, in regard to the revelation of the Bible, I de- 
sired to ask him. how he determines, in accordance with those 
principles, that inspiration has not been continued down to 
the present time. As we could not survive any length of 
time upon the accumulations of wealth and food of past time, 
without having recourse to the productions of the earth, so 
we can no more maintain our spiritual existence, except there 
be a constant influx of the Spirit of God for the development 
of our nature. 

There is an idea entertained by the Swedenborgians — I 
speak of them with respect — that the Bible has an internal, 



88 PEOCEEDIlirGSOFTHE 

a spiritual signification, and that we must not understand it 
in accordance with its literal signification. I saw when our 
friend (Mr. Barker) was speaking this afternoon, that the ob- 
jections which he brought against the Bible were only forci- 
ble on the ground of the strict and literal interpretation of 
the Bible. They would have no weight with an individual 
who believes that the Bible requires a spiritual interpretation. 

It has been claimed that the Bible is the Word of God, and 
that the human mind is not the proper judge of the divine 
inspiration — that this standard is too changing and changeable. 
It has been said that the human soul did not have in itself 
a standard of right and wrong, as is made evident from the 
fact, that in countries where they do not have the Bible they 
do not have definite conceptions of duty. It seems to me 
that books are but the out-growth of the human soul, as the 
buildings here in Hartford are the representatives of your in- 
ternal condition, the correspondents of certain conceptions of 
your souls ; and the reason why they do not have Bibles or 
books teaching morals and sublime principles in certain coun- 
tries is, because they have not come to that condition in 
which they are capable of producing them. The tree of hu- 
manity, then, has not arrived at the period when it is capable 
of putting forth such fruit. We should not consider books 
as implanting principles and truths in the human mind, but 
we should consider them as an expression, a correspondent of 
divine things imminent in the human mind, which make 
themselves more and more manifest as humanity rises in the 
scale of progress. 

I wish our friends to inform us how they know that the 
Bible is the Word of God, and how they know that the 
Shaster or Koran is not the Word of God. " Oh," say they, 
*'• we have decided this matter for ourselves, and we have 
found that it is the Word of God." I ask if you would have 
known that it was not the Word of God if it had not been 1 
Certainly you would, or else you would not have known that 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 8^ 

it was the Book of God. In deciding this question you must 
have exercised the same judgment which you contend is not 
a competent judge of the matter. You clearly imply by 
your position that the Bible is the Word of God — our posi- 
tion — that the human mind is competent to decide whether 
any given book is the Word of God or not. So you per- 
ceive that those men who have dodged the question, occupy 
the same position that we do. The question is not, as has 
been represented, whether or not the apostles were all a set 
of scamps attempting to impose upon mankind. My esti- 
mate of the characters presented in the Bible may be as good 
as that of either of those gentlemen (referring to Messrs. 
Storrs and Turner), but to that estimate I do not find it ne- 
cessary to subject my reason, and to say that I will not sit in 
judgment upon their productions — the Bible — when 1 have 
already sat upon it and decided it to be correct. 

The Bible, like other books, is a picture of its author, and 
as a picture we admire it when it gives a life-like representation 
— our interest in it depends upon its truthfulness to Nature. 
The Bible has in many respects held up the mirror to Nature, 
and so far as it does we must love it ; and it is for this rea- 
son that it has so long held on to the consciences and feelings 
of mankind, causing them even to receive and nourish the 
bad and prejudicial for the sake of the good. 

Mr. Henry C. Wright then spoke as follows : The ques- 
tion at issue between us is this, whether man has in himself a 
power competent to decide what is true and what is false in 
principle, and what is right and wrong in practice. That is 
the question as I understand by my friend Storrs. If it is 
not, I wish he would say so. 

Mr. SroRRS — The question with me was to know by what 
supposed rule the criminal is to be tried. 

Mr. Wright — My answer is, by the soul of man, which I 
maintain is competent to decide what is right and wrong in 
practice, and true and false in principle. I understand my 



' 90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

friend to say that there is no such power in the human soul — 
that there is no case where the soul is competent to decide 
what is true and false, and what is right and wrong. 

The gentleman (Mr. Storrs) brought up an instance, and 

asked, " What is it that leads the Hindoo mother to cast her 

babe into the Ganges to be devoured by the crocodile]'' 

Will he tell this audience that the mother has no feelings that 

revolt against such an act? What is the reason that she does 

this deed? She does not do it from the impulse of her own 

soul. Is there a father or mother that can answer that she 

^^id it from her maternal instincts ? Sir, a PAMxiyG system of 

supposed arbitrary revelation had been brought to bear upon that 

poor mother''s soul — a system of revelation coming through 

^ some priest oTTeligious chieftain, which told her that she must 

' throw her child into the Ganges or be damned. (Loud hisses 

and applause.) 

Yes, that terrific power which has, in all countries, wielded 
such mighty influence over the ignorant, a supposed arbitrary 
revelation, supposed to have come direct from God, was 
brought to bear upon this mother's soul, commanding her to 
violate the holiest instinct of her nature. 

Again he asks what it is that causes the Hindoo widow to 
cast herself upon the funeral pile of her husband. What 
causes it ? Will he dare stand up and say that it is the in- 
stincts of her heart that causes her to do so ? What did it ? 
A damning system of supposed arbitrary revelation that is 
brought to bear upon the poor ignorant creature. Mark you, 
it is not only the Christian system of revelation that is arbi- 
trary and opposed to the interests of the world. To the Hin- 
doo, the Shaster is a bible as sacred as your Bible is to you. 
f Tojtlie MohammedaUj the Koran is a bible as sacred as jyours 
\is to you, and Tie is drilled into obedience to it exactly as the 
/ Christians are trained into obedience to their Bible. It can 
j not be said that the Hindoo widow throws herself upon the 
1 funeral pile of her husband in obedience to the instincts of her 



I 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. • 91 

nature. We are told by the missionaries in Hindostan that 
while this terrible sacrifice is going on — while the widow is 
being burned to ashes on the funeral pile of her husband — the 
priests stand around the pile to compel the poor creature to 
lie where she is, and to prevent any one from taking her off. 

There is no time for answering all these positions in detail, 
but I desire to answer them in brief by one short argument. 
I ask this audience, does^ature teach you. how you wish others 
to" love you, or how much you wish_thejQgL_io.loye_you'? Do ^^'^ 
y^u~teeriTr'youF own souls, do you measure by your own ^^ 
souls, the amount of love which you wish others to have for 
you 1 You do not go to Moses, to Jesus, nor to the Bible to 
learn how much you want your wives to love you. You do 
not go to Moses nor to Jesus to learn how much you want 
your husbands to love you. You do not go to Moses nor to 
Jesus to learn how you want your children to love you. Mr. 
Chairman, it is just ridiculous to say the Bible is the only rule 
of faith and practice. You all know you never go to that nor 
any other book to learn how you are to feel and act in all the 
most intimate and important relations of life, but to your own 
souls. What did Jesus say about it % He says, " Love your 
neighbors." How ? not as Moses tells you to love them, not 
aiJesus tells you to love them, but " as you love yourself f"* 
and where are you to go to learn how you love yourself? 
Will you go to any thing outside of yourself? Your own 
heart tells you how much you love yourself. Just as you 
love yourself, so you must love your neighbor. 

Again, the Bible tells you to do to others as you wish them 
to do to you. The same was told you by Confucius long be- 
fore Jesus had a being. Where are you going to learn how 
you want others to treat yowl to Jesus? to Moses? to Mo- 
hammed? No. To the Bible? You never think of it. 
Where do you go to learn how you want others- to treat you? 
I say to your own hearts, and nowhere else. My friend Storrs 
does it exactly as I do : he goes to his own heart to decide 



92 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

the question how he wants others to feel and act toward him. 
Every other human being does the same. Every priest and 
Christian does the same. Yet they go on to reiterate the same 
falsehood — that they take the Bible as their only rule of faith 
and practice ! I repeat, not in one act in ten thousand of your 
lives do you think of what the Bible says. The merchant 
goes about his business on 'change, and in his store, and he 
has a rule of action which is ever present, and he never thinks 
of his Bible from one week's end to another, in buying and 
selling, as a law of life. Priests and politicians. Church and 
State, seldom quote the Bible except to sustain slavery, war, 
or some great outrage upon justice and humanity. How does 
he wish others to deal with him? Here's the testimony 
(laying his hand on his breast) — here. As yoXrwish others to 
treat you, so treat you them ; and I maintain that even Jesus 
/himself has settled the question between us, that man has in 
/ his own soul the power to decide how he is to feel and act 
■ toward his fellow-beings. In this the teachings of Jesus ac- 
cord with the fact, and are, therefore, true and authoritative ; 
sfor truth alone is authoritative. 

Our friends (Messrs. Storrs and Turner) have placed before 
us all the testimony that could possibly be needed upon our 
side of the question. I think that they have given us an 
argument that demonstrates the falsity of their own position. 
What, in the name of Heaven, have they been about 1 They 
have been interpreting a book — what else have they done ? 
"What did they use in explaining it % Their tongues, merely ? 
I reckon there was a soul that moved and guided the tongue. 
He may call it a brain, or a little bit of a muscle called a 
heart. There was something^ however, by which they decided 
on the meaning of the passages in that book. They have 
been using their reasons and instincts through all this argu- 
ment; and I say, that they being witnesses, there is some- 
thing that decides between truth and falsehood, and right and 
wrong, in the soul of every human being. Here is a book — 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 93 

the Bible. The first claim for it is, that it is, as a whole, the 
Word of God. Our friend appears on the platform to de- 
cide how much of it is true. He says that all is true, and I 
say, that only a part of it is true. How does he settle that 
it is all true 1 He brings the book to the test of his own 
soul, and so do I, and we come to different conclusions ; and 
I say that the meaning of every passage in that book is to 
be decided in the same way, and in none other. He (Mr. 
Storrs) has been using his reason every step that he has taken 
in this discussion. He has assumed that there is a law above 
the Bible by which it is to be tested, and when he appeals to 
you, he appeals to your reason, to an inner law, by which he 
wishes you to test the force of his arguments. 

Nobody in the universe has a right to decide this question "~x 
for me. Nobody in the universe has a right to decide it for 
Mr. Storrs, except Mr. Storrs — nobody for Mr. Turner, but 
Mr. Turner. Shall we set up a priesthood to decide for us 
as to what is right and wrong ? I repeat it, without qualificar 
tion, that every human being should decide for himself, and 
there is no other way to determine what is right and wrong, 
or true and false. Bj^ the indi. vj_dual reason every CQiestion 
is to be settled. This is the law by which theJBible must be 
l^TtedTand^ is tried by every' human Joeing. And when it is 
tested by reason, by the natural sympathies, instincts, and 
affections of the human soul, how monstrous are some of 
the teachings of the Bible ! What unnatural, cruel, savage, 
revengeful, and murderous feelings and passions, commands 
and actions, it attributes to God ! There is not a man nor a 
woman in Christendom who, if they were to find the same 
things in any other book, would not instantly conclude that 
it could not be from a God of love and justice. 

The Convention then adjourned to Friday, ten o'clock, a.m. 



1 



94: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 



SECOND DAY-MORNING SESSION. 

Friday, June 2>d. 
' At ten o'clock, the Convention was called to order by the 
Chairman, Mr. Barker, of Ohio, when 

Mr. S. J. DoRRANCE, of New Jersey, read the following 
resolution, offered by Mr. Wright, as the basis of his re- 
marks : 

Resolved, That God has given to man a rule of life, wliich -^vill ren- 
der him, if he lives by it, just what God designed he should be, and 
that the knowledge of this law can be obtained only by a careful study 
of man's physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual nature. 

The circumstance which makes it proper now to consider 
the subject of this resolution is this: it has been affirmed that 
the writers of the Bible, whoever they were, believed God 
authorized men, in ancient times, nay, commanded them, to 
commit certain abominable crimes. That he commanded the 
Israelites, for instance, through Moses, to slay deliberately all 
the men of the Midlanite nation, amounting to many thou- 
sands ; to burn all their cities with fire, and having done this, 
to kill every male little one — which must have been several 
thousands — and every woman who had ever been married, 
and to preserve for themselves all the virgins, which amounted 
to thirty- two thousand. Now the record of human butcher- 
ies contains nothing more bloody, more savagely cruel and 
diabolical than this. This is not the only instance ; it is but 
one out of many in which these Isi"aelites perpetrated the 
most ghastly crimes ever committed on earth, by the express 
command of God, as they thought. 

Indeed, I may say with perfect truth, there is no crime — 
the human imagination can conceive of none — the children of 
Israel did not commit, under what they supposed God's com- 
mand. Murder, arson, pillage are terms that but faintly 



HAEl'FOEB BIBLE CONVE]^TIOK. 95 

describe the atrocities perpetrated by those reeking, red-hand- 
ed butchers. Baby-murder ! the murder of women by the 
thousand together, because they were wives and mothers ! 
commanded by the All-just, All- wise, All-good Father of the 
universe ! We believe God commanded no such thing. That 
Moses and his bloody associates were either mistaken or 
something worse. That it is a libel upon God's character to 
publish such things of him. That the writers of the Bible 
were mistaken about God's will in a great many cases, and 
conclude, therefore, that the Bible is not to be relied upon as 
a rule of faith or practice. 

At this point we are met in this way — If, as you believe, 
the Bible does not represent the character and will of the 
living God truly and reliably, then there is no such represen- 
tation in existence, and the human race are necessarily igno- 
rant of either. If God's will be not revealed here, then it is 
not revealed anywhere, and men do not and can not know 
the will of God at all. God's will is the law, and the only 
law of mankind. If his will has not been revealed in the 
Bible, then the law is not known. 

By what law, then, do you propose to judge the Bible? 
Where is the law ? Every thing that is right, is right because 
it is the will of God. Every thing that is wrong, is wrong 
for the same reason. 

But if the Bible be not true, you do not know his will, and 
can not know it, consequently have no means of judging what 
is right and what wrong. 

To thisjw:e_reply : There is a law older than the Bible, old 
as the human race, old as the possibility to enjoy and suffer, 
extending its Binding force to every human will, and known 
to the human race through the natural exercise of conscience. 
This law is known to the entire race of mankind, and has been 
known since men were men. The wise and the simple, the 
young and the old, all know it, and can not but know it, un- 
less they be idiots or insane. All can not state it in words, 



96 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

nor can all understand the verbal formulas which constitute its 
statement in the abstract. Yet there is not a conscience that 
does not spontaneously reveal it, nor a human consciousness 
within which it is not contained. 

To make this point clear is the sole object of my remarks. 
It is necessary to observe that the word "law" does not 
always designate the same thing. When used in reference to 
the physical powers of nature, it means simply the invariable- 
ness of the action of these powers under the same conditions. 
Thus it is a law of the power embodied in water invariably to 
solidify the water under given conditions. It is a law of mag- 
nets invariably to attract each other by their dissimilar poles. 
It is a law of dry and properly constituted gunpowder to as- 
sume invariably the gaseous form when ignited by a spark. 
But when the word law refers to the will-power — to the human 
will — it does not mean that this power acts invariably in the 
same way under the same conditions, but the way it ought 
invariably to act under all possible circumstances. How a 
power acts is one thing ; how a power ought to act is quite 
another. 

Obviously the moral law is not what the human will invari- 
ably does do, but what it otight invariably to do, under all cir- 
cumstances. It means one rule of action for the entire human 
race in all ages and countries, and under all circumstances. 
It is not an arbitrary rule which God's will created. It is a 
necessary rule which determines even the divine will. It is 
not the law because God wills it, but God wills it because it 
is law. It is the law which precedes and regulates the divine 
volition, not that which comes from it. It is as well the law 
of the divine as of the human will. 

Such a law can not, in the nature of things, be a rule of 
external action. External action can not conform to one sole 
rule without variation throughout the entire world of man- 
kind. They can not, for instance, everywhere eat the same 
sort of food, in exactly the same quantity, at precisely the 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 97 

same hour, in summer and winter, sick or well ; nor wear 
exactly the same vestments, nor live in houses just alike the 
world over, nor do precisely the same sort of work, in all 
ages, without regard to strength, or health, or sex, or youth, 
and any other circumstance whatever. 

Obviously the moral law does not apply to external action — 
to movement In space. No one rule of outward conduct can 
be devised that could consist with the law of progress. 
Bees, the world over, observe one rule of outward conduct. 
But the first generation is as wise as the last, builds its comb, 
and makes its honey as well. So of other animals. 

In animals there is no progress, no improvement in con- 
duct. 

If one rule governed the external conduct of mankind, one 
generation must be just like another, as is the case with bees. 
The moral law can only apply to somewhat in which the en- 
tire human race can and ought to be alike — alike without 
regard to age, sex, country, condition, or any other circum- 
stance whatever. This something is precisely this, the getie- 
ral aim of the soul. This ought to be the same in all man- 
kind. 

Every human creature, the world over, ought to have the 
same general aim : namely, to promote his own well-being, and 
the well-being of all others whom his conduct affects. The 
moral law prescribes one and the same general aim for all men. 
It does not prescribe one and the same external action to all. 
Seek constantly and diligently your own permanent welfare, 
and that of the rest of mankind is the 07ily precept of the moral 
law. Never seek to promote your own good at the expense 
of another's, nor your own enjoyment at one time, at the ex- 
pense of your own suffering at another. This is the negative 
form of stating the same thing. Love your neighbor as your 
self. That is, seek to promote his welfare as you seek to 
promote your own. 

Whatsoever ye would that others should do to you, do ye 



98 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

even so unto them. That is, shice you necessarily desire oth- 
ers to promote your happiness, do you seek to promote theirs. 
All these are but different modes of stating the one sole pre- 
cept of the moral law. This precept is applicable only to the 
mind's aim. If the aim agree with this precept it is right ; if 
not, it is v/rong. If a man's aim agree with this precept he [■ 
is a good man, though he fail to accomplish it. If a mother 
aim to promote her child's welfare by striving to restore it to 
health when sick, she is good, though she, through mistake in 
selecting medicine, actually kill it. He whose aim constantly 
agrees with this precept is a man after God's own heart. No 
matter how humble, how poor, how ignorant, how feeble ; no 
matter what the age, sex, or condition, he v.-ho aims so, and 
not otherwise, is as good, morally speaking, as man can be. 
Successful accomplishment is not the test of virtue. 

The poor cobbler in his stall, scrupulously avoiding to do 
any thing hurtful to others to promote his own welfare, while 
faithfully stitching to give daily bread to his wife and babes, 
is worthy all honor — while the rich merchant, bent mainly to 
enrich himself, quite careless how others fare, is ignoble, though 
he really, by his outward conduct, promotes the welfare of 
thousands. This not being his Aim, goes not to his credit in 
the view of the wise. 

The moral law, then, just prescribes one thing, and one only, 
to all human^tr^ings. It says to a ll, Aitn at good, welfare, 
happiness, well-being (it matters little which term is used), 
for "yourself and others. The sole function of conscience is 
tBTirak« this^ one thing known to the human race. Those who 
complain that conscience varies in its judgments in different 
countries, and almost in every man, so as to be, as a guide to 
action, almost worthless, or quite, entirely misconstrue its 
function. They confound it with that of a very different fac- 
ulty. They seem to regard conscience as a sort of maid-of-all- 
work, having no specific duty, but to attend to matters and 
things in general. A very little reflection would discover. 



\ ( 



/Viv^ u Mxtc^-^-W^T-^^^ my ^^pi^ 



HARTFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 99 

that if conscience could not only reveal the aim which should 
animate the race, but at the same time prescribe the means 
adapted to its accomplishment, it \YOuld render useless any- 
other faculty whatever. We have an__ understa nding as well 
as aconsci^ce^__. Its function is to discover the means by 
wHich the end prescribed by conscience may be accomplished. 
Conscience never prescribes different aims to different men ; 
but understanding does suggest different means. Conscience 
never errs— understanding does err. All the seeming errors 
of conscience are real errors of the understanding. Conscience 
prescribes to all mothers to aim at the permanent good of 
their children. Whether the mother be a Hindoo or a Hot- ' 

tentot, a Jew or a Christian, a Catholic or a Protestant, makes 
no difference. The understanding of all mothers must decide 
upon the means of accomplishing this aim. 

The Hindoo mother, taking the traditions of her country to 
be good evidence, instead of taking nothing for good evidence, 
not verified by experience and observation, judges the means 
to be, throwing her baby into the sacred river Ganges. This 
is obviously an error of the understanding about a question 
of fact, not an error of conscience respecting an aim. The ] 

aim is right; the means not adapted to accomplish it. If / 

throwing children into some sacred river were really the very 
best means of promoting their everlasting welfare, I should 
advise all mothers to cast them in. 

The judgment, oLiiQiiSi^ience is a priori. The judgment of 
the^nderstanding a_jiosi.mQr^. . The one is infallibly certain 
before experience — the other depends upon experience. This 
distinction is of the first importance in the discussion of moral 
questions. By not sufficiently attending to it, conscience has 
fallen into general disrepute, as a useless faculty, or rather a 
faculty performing its function so badly, that, for all practical 
purposes, the race of mankind might as well have none at all. 
The human conscience has been libeled quite long enough. 
It is, in fact, the grand faculty of the soul. It performs its 



100 PEOCEEDIITGS OF THE 

function with undeviating accuracy. It is the ground of the 
possibility of virtue. It is no mere factitious concern, subject 
to change its judgment as the fashion changes, and to be modi- 
fied to suit the fancy of whoever or whatever happens to lead 
popular opinion. It is a natural faculty, having a natural 
function, which it spontaneously, infallibly^ and irresistibly 
performs, in precisely the same manner, throughout the entire 
world of mankind. 

The human stomach does not more constantly and natu- 
rally convert food into blood, than conscience indicates to man 
4he aim that should direct all his activities. No man judges, 
no man can judge, thanks be to conscience, that he ought con- 
stantly to aim to make all men suffer as much as lies in his 
power. Consequently no man proposes to pursue such a 
diabolical line of conduct. Every man necessarily judges 
the contrary. That the moral law prescribes the ultimate aim 
for every will, and prescribes nothing else, is seen from this. 
Moral character is always determined by the actor's aim. 
The effect of his external acts has nothing to do with it^ If 
one aims to save his neighbor's life by shooting a bear that 
is pursuing him, and in his haste and anxiety kills the man, 
nobody pronounces him guilty. His aim agrees with that 
prescribed by the moral law, and therefore is right. If this 
law required the result invariably to agree with the aim, and 
the means employed to be in all cases exactly adapted to 
produce such a result, then this men would be guilty. lie, 
in that case, would have gone counter to the law. The law, 
by the supposition, not only requiring a good aim, but like- 
wise a good result — he has broken the law in not obtaining 
the result required. 

Hard, indeed, would man's lot be, if the moral law re- 
quired a good result with the same strictness that it requires 
a good aim. Aims depend on the will, and on this only. Re- 
sults depend on the action of the physical powers of nature. 
Whether a man aim to produce a field of corn rests with himj 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION". . 101 

whether he do produce one depends on other power than his. 
Therefore the moral law requires good ahns only. The hu- 
man conscience requires only this, and this it invariably and 
everywhere requires. 

Paul and Apollos could aim to convert men to Christ ; but, 
I as Paul well intimated, it was not in them to command sue- 
I cess. Eesults, as before observed, depend on the action of 
! the physical powers of nature. The action of these powers 
depends on the supplying of certain conditions. This, again, 
on our knowing these conditions, and this, again, on experience 
and observation. But if the moral law extended to the result 
of action, as it does to the aim, we could never try an ex- 
periment without running the risk of committing a crime. 
The result being, from the nature of the case, doubtful, might 
not be what the law required, and we might sin while having 
the best aims conceivable. 
I The moral law relates to the aims or purposes of the soul, 
i an^TtoThese ohTy. It prescribes one and the same ultimate 
aim to every"wT[rin the universe. This one aim is the good, 
the happiness, the well-being of one's self and one's neighbor. 
Conscience, naturally and spontaneously, recognizes this aim 
as the only right one. It naturally, irresistibly, and univer- 
sally recognizes the soul's obligation to will so, and not 
otherwise. This is the sole function of conscience. But sim- 
ply willing my own and my neighbor's good does not pro- 
duce it. Action, external action, the use of means, is there- 
fore necessary. External action is action in space. It is the 
action of the physical powers of nature. Eesults, all results 
whatever, so far as man is concerned, depend on the action 
of these powers. 

Before man can excite these to action, and direct them with 

success to the accomplishment of his purposes, he must know 

\ their laws. To obtain a knowledge of their laws is the great 

function; not of the conscience, but of the understanding. If 

the understanding be well posted up in the knowledge of 



102 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

these laws, means will be well chosen and the soul's purposes 
successfully accomplished. If the understanding be ignorant 
of these, if it misconceive them, means will be ill chosen, and 
mischief and misery will inevitably result. 

A Hindoo mother, ignorant of the powers in nature and 
their laws, supposes powers that do not exist. She desires 
good for herself, good for her babe, and aims to produce it. 
Being ignorant, and trusting the traditions of her country, she 
supposes throwing her child into the Ganges will do what 
really it will not do. This is an error of her understanding, 
not of her conscience. Enlighten her understanding and she 
wdll discontinue the practice. If she did thus, in order to 
make her child and herself suffer, without any belief that the 
suffering would be temporary, and ultimately lead to happi- 
ness ; if she judged she ought to aim at the production of suf- 
fering, as an ultimate end, then I should say enlighten her 
conscience. There is a thousand-fold more mischief in the 
results of human action than is in men's aims. Set all that 
down to ignorance. Enlighten men's understanding, and the 
world will seem better, and be happier. For really men seem 
a great deal worse than they are. Obviously no man aims to 
make himself suffer, but the contrary. The result of his con- 
duct is, however, to bring suffering to himself through mis- 
taking the means by which a contrary result might be secured. 

We stupidly blame men as if they actually aimed at all the 
mischief they do, and we shall continue to act in this stupid 
fashion until we accustom ourselves to distinguish the aims of 
the soul from the results of outward action, and to perceive that 
the moral la\V prescribes aims only, not results. Men violate 
the law, for the most part, in not aiming at the good of others 
while pursuing their own, and not by diicctly aiming to pro- 
duce misery. They break the law negatively, not positively, 
by not including enough in their aim, instead of aiming at the 
opposite of what the law requires. The seller of rum, for in- 
stance, aims at his own good, all the good perhaps he has any 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 103 

idea of, the good of eating, drinking, and sleeping, and pursues 
this aim by doing what he knows injures his neighbors, not be- 
cause it injures his neighbors, but because he promotes, as he 
conceives, his own good. He, in common with the greater por- 
tion of other men, leaves out of his aim the good of his neigh- 
bor. This the laY\- imperiously requires him to include in it. 

He leaves it out. Other men, very respectable men, leave 
it out ; not. hovvever, through ignorance that the law requires 
them to leave it in ; no man ever sinned, or can sin, through 
ignorance of the law. Sin consists in doing what one Jcnoios 
to be wrong. He who does not hiow he ought to include the 
good of his neighbor in the general aim of his life, does not 
sin by leaving it out. He may leave it out innocently. It 
is probably as contrary to the general plan of the Almighty 
for tigers to kill men, as for men to kill men. Tigers do not 
know they ought to include in their aim the good of men as 
well as their own good ; therefore it is, and therefore only., that 
tigers do not sin in killing men. They have not conscience. 
If men did not know, could, not know, what the aim of the 
soul should be, no man could sin. To say, therefore, that man 
can not know right from wrong without a miracle, without 
supernatural light, and at the same time to accuse him of sin, 
is the ne plus ultra of absurdity. To say man is incompetent, 
by reason of the defective nature of his faculties, to judge the 
aims of the persons whose actions are described in the Bible, 
is to perpetrate- this very absurdity. If I did not know the 
aim of Joseph's brothers when they cast him into the pit, and 
lied to their old father, to be wrong, what would be the sense 
of describing to me this action *? It would, in that case, seem 
to me just as right as any other. But having the faculty to 
distinguish right aims from wrong ones, such cases appeal to 
it, exercise it, and cause it to take a distinct form in my con- 
sciousness. This is the sole use of describing such cases to 
me. If I had no such faculty, more than a horse has, none 
could be appealed to. and you might as well, for all purposes 



104 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

of moral instruction, tell the story to the horse. Everywhere 
the Bible presupposes, and takes for granted, such a faculty in 
the human race. It everywhere addresses it, and by address- 
ing, implies that it is a valid faculty (for what would be the 
sense of addressing a wretched, rickety faculty likelier to be 
false than true in its responses ?), and the main use this book 
has served consists in its appeals to this faculty of the soul. 

Much that the Bible approves of, very much, agrees with 
the natural dictate of conscience. Much, also, does not agree ; 
and this conscience can know as well as the other. It is one 
of the gravest mistakes ever made to deny the validity and 
authority of conscience. The idea of substituting the Bible 
for it is absurd. The Bible is the grandest monument anti- 
quity has left upon earth in proof of its validity. It has done 
much, very much, to cause the w^orkings of this faculty to 
stand out prominently and boldly in our consciousness. By 
presenting us the record of the doings of a highly distin- 
guished ancient nation — distinguished by this very fact, that 
it had become conscious of the workings of conscience, though 
not particularly enlightened in its understanding, since it could, 
and did believe, that God required it to violate its conscience, 
in dealing with everybody but Israelites — by presenting this 
record so as constantly to appeal to the conscience, by exhib- 
iting the nation's conduct ever in a moral point of view, it has 
done much good. But since the attempt to substitute it for 
the conscience and understanding both ; since the attempt to 
make the human race walk by the light of Moses and the Is- 
raelitish prophets, denying any light in modern men, save 
what percolated through the souls of these, it has done unmit- 
igated harm, and has worked evil continually. Instead of 
supplying the conditions of exercising and developing con- 
science, it has superseded conscience, extinguished its heavenl; 
light, rendered men incapable of knowing that a crime is r; 
crime, if Moses and his associates thought it was not, and is 
constantly made use of to justify the worst crimes of modern 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 105 

times. Thus it is harming mankind, and it becomes needful 
to investigate its real character. 

At this point Rev. B. Danforth, of Boston, having arisen 
to speak, a colloquy ensued between Messrs. Turner, Pills- 
bury, Storrs, and others, as to the right of Mr. Danforth to 
speak at that particular time; and it being decided by the 
Chairman that Mr. Danforth was entitled to the floor as being, 
in accordance with his declaration, opposed to the position of 
the last speaker. Rev. Mr. Turner, appealed from the decision 
of the Chair, but the decision of the Chair being sustained, 
Mr. Danforth proceeded in his remarks, which, on account of 
their irrelevancy to the subject under discussion, are omitted. 

Rev. George Stores having briefly reviewed the position 
that he took in a former speech with reference to the necessity 
of defining a law by which the Bible is to be tried, and having 
recapitulated his arguments against the sufficiency and relia 
billty of the law which had been adduced by his opponents, 
proceeded in his remarks as follows : 

I desire to make a few comments upon the speech of the 
speaker of this morning (Mr. Dorrance). He commenced 
with his illustrations, and began down with the blade of 
grass. " It comes up by a law infixed into its very nature. 
It does not ask any other blade of grass whether it may 
grow and expand itself, or not. That law is a law that 
can not be interfered with." But, sir, here comes up an 
oak, right by the blade of grass, and roots it up, and de- 
stroys its claims and rights. Is there any law violated 
there 1 Suppose we go a step farther. Yonder is a piece of 
ground being covered with beautiful things that grow well, 
and this oak comes up, and spreads out its boughs far and 
wide, and overspreads the little things, and cuts ofl* the sun 
from them. Natural religion says it has no business to inter- 
fere with them. Does natural religion say that that oak is 

5* 



106 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

guilty of a crime'? or does it say that the oak has a right to 
grow as well as the grass, and take off the sun from the grass ? 
I am onl}^ wishing to show that natural religion, after all, is 
not a religion or theology by which we can try the Bible. 
JSfo, sir. But to travel on a little farther in this scale of up- 
rising, we come to the animal creation. Let us see about this 
law of natural religion, or natural theology. Here are the 
fishes. Every fish has a right to grow ; but a big fish comes 
along — he has a right to swallow down the little one — down 
he goes. (Laughter.) What right had he, by natural religion, 
to swallow down his little fellow? Does not natural religion 
come in and say that this big fish was a "great sinner 1" 
What a grand law by which to determine the moral character 
of God — the great Being who created all things! Travel 
along in the scale of these creatures a little farther, and what 
do you see there 1 W^hy, one of the charges brought against 
the Bible is, that it countenances polygamy! Indeed, sir! 
Well, how do you know but that that is right 1 Does natural 
theology teach the contrary 1 Travel through the whole ani- 
mal creation, and do you find any thing that forbids it there? 
Understand me not as standing here to defend polygamy ; I 
am only endeavoring to show that the rule by which you claim 
to judge the Bible is a defective and unreliable rule. 

Now, if this law means any thing, it means that you should 
respect the right of every creature — it means that you should 
respect the right of the horse, of the ox, and of the honey- 
bee; but you just put your yoke upon the neck of the young 
ox, and though he may rear, you goad him up to do contrary 
to his sense of right and liberty, and use his services all his 
life long, without recompense or without I'eward. Does natu- 
ral religion say that that is not wrong, that you have not in- 
vaded his rights ? W-^ill my friend Wright afiirm that it is 
wrong thus to subjugate the ox? and so in regard to the whole 
process of subjecting the animal creation, and making them 
subservient to man. Does natural religion forbid this right 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONYENTION. 107 

of taking the inferior creatures and subjecting them to our 
own use — even to taking away their liberties and their lives? 
I ask if natural religion does not fo^'bid it, how do you know 
then that natural religion forbids God using nian in the same 
way that men use animals 1 God surely is more above us 
than we are above the animal creation. For all that natural 
religion can affirm, his power and right may be as much supe- 
rior to us as it is possible for us to conceive. 

Now, suppose I should say that two and two make twenty. 
"Don't everybody here say no?" says the speaker. Sir, 
how came you to say no ? Does the natural understanding, 
unenlightened, untaught, say no ? Suppose I tell a child that 
two and two make twenty, will he say that it is not twenty ? 
How does he come to know that two and two do not make 
twenty, but that they make four ? Does he know it by natural 
instinct, or did he have to be taught by some one above him? 
" Suppose," said the speaker, " you were told that my nose is 
twenty feet long, does not the natural sense say no, that is a 
great deal too long V I ask, what is this natural sense ? Is 
it something given to us by instinct, or is it something re- 
ceived by instruction from others? Suppose I tell a child 
who has no knowledge of measures and distances, that your 
nose is twenty feet long, he would certainly take my asser- 
tion as true. If natural religion is to be relied upon, the 
moment you tell him that the nose is twenty feet long, he 
would know that it was not so. How can he know what is 
right and wrong but by some rule that has been developed 
from some higher source. I admit that when God has pro- 
mulgated a law, he allow^s us to use our reason. I admit, sir, 
that revelation is made to reason, and we have a right to em- 
ploy our reason upon it. God has constituted man with a 
capacity for reasoning, but that capacity has to be developed 
under some system of instruction. Shut up a man above ; put 
him where he never can see his fellow-man, and then, when 
years have passed away, see how much he can receive, see how 



108 PKOCEEDIXGS OF THE 

much he knows about what is right and wrong. I apprehend 
that it is the plainest thing in the world, that natural religion 
can never give us one ray of light as to the moral perfections 
of God. No, sir. Natural religion can never reach that 
point ; and I beg the audience to give their attention to this 
fact — that our friends have* not touched this question. Thej 
have not told us by what law of natural religion they can 
take away from the cow the calf, producing so much injury 
to her feelings. How do they know but that that Being who 
is above us — that is, over us, may, if he please, take away 
our life when he pleases ? It has not been answered yet. I 
maintain it has not been touched. 

Mr. S. J. TiNNEY, of Ohio, remarked : I was somewhat 
surprised on hearing the old call made for our definition of 
the law by which the Bible is to be tried, and more especially 
when the gentleman came upon the stand and proceeded, by 
the action of his natural powers, to show that man's natural 
religious powers can not be the rule by which we are to judge 
the Bible. In remarking concerning one of the illustrations 
made by my friend from Newark, New Jersey (Mr. Dorrance), 
he says that the blade of grass springs up, and the oak coming 
up near it tears it from the soil and destroys its rights and 
claims. I deny that any such thing is to be found in nature. 
An oak grows not up in a night. It grows up gradually and 
quietly, and gently crowds the blade of grass along ; and 
there is a perfect reciprocation of rights between the noble 
oak and the tender blade of grass. (Applause.) He tells 
you that you can not discover by natural religion one ray of 
light with regard to the moral perfections of Deity. Who 
ever heard such an absurd proposition as this ! He will 
claim for the Bible that it is a revelation of God, and that no 
ray of light- ever came from God upon the subject of religion, 
except whaL came from that Bible to us ; because he claims 
that that is the standard, and the only standard. 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 109 

Now, sir, he is either simply ignorant of the history of 
nations, or else he is intentionally silent upon the subject. I 
would like to know where the law of right originated. If all 
noble and elevating thoughts — if all pure religious concep- 
tions are to be gained through the medium of a divine reve- 
lation — are to come through the Bible, 1 would like to know 
by what means Pythagoras, who lived six hundred years be- 
fore Jesus of Nazareth, was enabled to attain to the concep- 
tion of those noble sentiments and pure maxims which he 
gave to the world. You may go to nations entirely distinct 
from the Jewish nation, and you will find a religion far more 
natural and beautiful than any received from the Jewish 
Scriptures. The wild Indian of the forest had a universal 
Spirit-Father whom he worshiped. He was taught in the ris- 
ing and the setting of the sun the benevolence of his Spirit- 
God ; and the very gift of the soil over which he chased the 
flying deer was an evidence to his mind of the bounteous 
goodness of his own Spirit- Father, as we find by examining 
the character of the Indian tribes from the very earliest pe- 
riod of Ihe history of the Indian nations. Why, the man 
must be wild to make such an assertion, that we know noth- 
ing of the character of God by the light of nature. I would 
like to know, too, as friend "Wright asked, from what source 
Jesus ever drew his sublimest truths 1 As friend Ingalls said 
last evening, he drew them from the universality Of the oper- 
ation of universal principles ; and from the universal benevo- 
lence of the operation of such principles in nature he forced 
home upon the mind of his hearers the thought of the uni- 
versal benevolence of the heavenly Father. He points them 
to the rising sun. " Behold !" says he — 7narJc this — " your 
Father maketh his sun to rise upon the evil and upon the 
good; and he sendeth his rain upon the just and upon the 
unjust." Here is a natural religion, Mr. President, which 
appealed to the thought of Jesus, and through him found 
sweet utterance to his friends. (Applause.) Again he refer- 



110 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

red to the child, and said : " Suppose you should tell the 
child that two and two make four, would he know this to be 
the case till he was taught it ?" I will ask who could teach 
him — his father? And who taught the father] "Oh, his 
father taught him ;" and so you may inin back to the first 
man — and who taught him'? Do you find it in the Bible? 
No, it can not be found there. Then, again, that twice two 
are four, is a truth which the native red man, without the 
Bible, has discovered. It is a truth which all nations of the 
earth have discovered, and every man knows this. "Where 
did it come from ? " Oh, it was taught to them." Did God 
give them a special revelation to teach them that twice two 
are four 1 No. It exists in the man's thoughts, and in the 
relation of units to each other — it exists in ourselves. I say 
when I pick up one unit, " one ;" when I pick up another unit 
I say, "two" — another, that is "three" — another, that is 
" four." What do I mean by the terms, " one, two, three, 
and four f They are terms which I have developed to ex- 
press the relation of these units. God never taught this to 
man through revelation according to his (Mr. Storrs) idea of 
revelation. 

As our friend Wright said last evening, the very attempt 
to show w^hy we can not judge the Bible by natural religion, 
is not only an evidence of the existence of that law of life — 
of right and wrong in the soul — but it is an evidence of its 
reliableness and sufficiency, as a test of all matters of faith. 
If there is a law higher than this, why does he not bring it 
forward to settle this question beyond the possibility of a 
doubt. Why does he not bring his Bible on to the stand to 
prove his positions true ] 

I contend that his idea of natural religion is altogether too 
limited. He disjoins nature. He says man can not discern 
what is right by natural religion, simply because beasts violate 
what men conceive to be right and proper. It is disjoining 
nature ; for the plant has its laws of growth, the animal king- 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. Ill 

dom has its laws of growth and action, and every other species 
of existence have their laws of growth and action. Hence, I 
say, how absurd to take the laws of my nature and apply 
them to the brute ! What would you think of arraigning a 
brute, and charging him with murder, because he had eaten 
up a fellow-brute % What would you think of the act of taking 
a brute, and bringing him on to the stand to prove that I have 
no law within my nature sufficient to govern me, simply be- 
cause the brute has none '? What folly ! Natural religion, 
when relating to man, must be found in man himself; and 
when we take the whole compass of man into consideration, 
we shall not see any disjointed connection — we shall see no 
inharmonious relations of the various parts of nature. There 
is a sentiment, as the friends of this sentiment have developed 
before, existing in the human heart universally, and that sen- 
timent found expression in Pythagoras as well as in Jesus, 
who lived six hundred years after Pythagoras : " Do unto 
others as ye would that others should do unto you." 

This law is deeply engraven in man's nature, and no bible, 
no priest, can ever blot it out. (Applause.) Jesus, as has 
been said, did not refer to the writings of Moses to render 
authoritative his teachings, but threw each man upon his na- 
ture, and said, Act out your desires, your natural aspirations ; 
in other words, act in accordance with yourselves, not with 
Moses, or me, or any body else, and you will accomplish the 
grand result of your existence. 

My reason, all the faculties of my intellectual and mental 
nature are faculties for the expression of the natural religion 
which God by his eternal law has embodied in my constitu- 
tion. This is so with every human being, and this principle 
of which I spoke is universal : " Do ye unto others* as ye 
would that they should do unto you." It lived before Jesus 
lived — found its expressio7i before he lived — will live while 
humanity shall live. Why V Because it is the natural de- 
velopment of the soul itself. Why, here (laying his hand 



112 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

upon his breast), my friends, it exists — right in your heart. 
It is not a matter of revelation at all. 

You have a certain dealing with one of your neighbors. 
What is the first thought you would have as regards your 
connection with that neighbor? Suppose you think : "Well, 
now, my neighbor sleeps with his door unlocked. He has 
money in his vault, and I will go and steal it." I ask every 
man and woman, what would be the first thought you would 
have ? You would say at once, " It is not right ;" and this 
would be the feeling of your heart if you had never seen a 
Bible. You bring yourself in a moment to consider the rela- 
tions subsisting between yourself and neighbor, and from 
those relations you learn that such an act could not be right. 
It is not derived from revelation. It is the natural out-speak- 
ing of the human soul. If you want proof of this, go to the 
red man of the forest. Do you ever find him thieving from 
his fellow 1 It is a well-known fact, admitted by all who are 
conversant with the savages, that they have a strict and holy 
regard to this law of individual rights. If we show that this 
law is applied and is understood outside of the pale of revela- 
tion, as we think we have shown — I say, if we show that it 
has a practical operation, where" revelation does not exist, we 
prove that the law is inherent in the soul, and that the soul has 
developed it. 

If we were to take the position of our friend Storrs, we 
should say emphatically, that man can know nothing whatever 
from the action of his faculties, and that he can know nothing 
unless it is revealed to him by God. You will see that fol- 
lowing his course of reasoning to its ultimate, this is the only 
conclusion to which he can arrive. 

Again, from the very fact that law is addressed to the 
human soul, implies a capacity in the soul to appreciate those 
laws and apply them. We should be exceedingly foolish if 
we were to command the granite rock to do to its fellow as it 
would have its fellow do to it — it would be foolish to make 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 113 

such a command, because we should see that there was no 
capacity in the rock to appreciate the command. So a reve- 
lation addressed to man, to be useful, must be something 
which his soul has the capacity to understand, to appreciate, 
to apply. If it is a true revelation, he will understand it to 
be true only when he sees that an application of it is just 
what all his various relations demand ; and then he will see 
that the law does not exist simply because it is in the revela- 
tion, but because the relations develop it. If then he judges 
that the revelation is true, because he finds that it is what the 
relations demand — develop — he judges of the law — and the ca- 
pacity to judge of the law lies in his own soul ; and if he has 
a capacity to judge of the relations which make the law, he 
certainly can judge as to the truthfulness of a revelation 
which can only be an exponent of the laws developed by the 
relations. 

The Convention then adjourned to half-past two o'clock, 
p. M. 



SECOND DAY-AFTERNOON SESSION. 

Friday^ June 3d. 
The Convention having been called to order by the Presi- 
dent, Mr. Barker, of Ohio, Rev. Mr. Turner made the fol- 
lowing speech : 

The position of the question before the audience is still 
deeply interesting. The question as to the law by which the 
Bible is to be judged is still the matter of discussion ; and 
since several arguments made by the gentleman this morning 
have not been met, which arguments deserve attention, I 



114: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

propose to refer to the main positions taken by the speakers 
in their several arguments. We still insist that an adequate 
law for the testing of the Bible has not yet been adduced. 
This law, it has been said, is in the human mind — in its very 
constitution. This position has been argued at length by the 
speaker referred to, and most ably too, considering the posi- 
tion ; but in defending this position, the idea has been cor 
veyed to the audience that if the law of the human mind was 
not an adequate law by which to try the Bible, it is not capa- 
ble of trying any thing. It has been intimated that we have 
supposed, on our side, that man has no capabilities of judging 
in any matter. 

This, Mr. President, is a wrong construction of our posi- 
tion. We readily affirm that man has the capacity for rea- 
soning ; is able to try questions ; to try even the Bible ; to 
try all the doctrines of the Bible : but, sir, at the same time, 
we affirm that we must have some law by Vv-hich to try 4lie 
Bible and its doctrines. 

When a criminal is put upon trial, he is called to trial 
before a court with a competent jury. The business of that 
jury is to judge in the case of the trial of that man ; but, Mr. 
Chairman, who ever thought that the jury were the laio? 
Who ever dreamed that the jury had a right to make the law? 
They, sir, are called into court to try a supposed criminal by 
law and evidence ; hence, when that criminal is put upon trial, 
the peculiar nature of the crime with which he is charged is 
first brought out, alleged, and then the law is defined by 
which he is to be tried by the court ; there are authorities 
cited, touching the case. After it is decided by what law his 
individual case is to be tried, he is put upon trial ; and the 
jury are to judge in that case according to the law and the 
evidence given in the case. 

Now we do not stop to dispute the testimony that has been 
offered against the Bible at this time. That is not the point 
in hand at present ; but w^e now want to know the law, the 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 115 

standard by which the character of the Bible is to be denoted, 
and then we will proceed with the testimony in its favor. 

The speaker this morning (Mr. Dorrance), in endeavoring 
to show that there is a law interwoven in the constitution of 
every human being capable of judging of the truthfulness and 
value of the Bible, was most ingenious in his argument. He 
was not only ingenious, but evinced a depth of thought and 
study of nature and man that should be respected by every 
individual on the opposite side of the question ; but observe, 
that with his ability and ingenuity he gave us two peculiar 
illustrations that in themselves may deceive you, if you do 
not carry them a little further than my friend carried them. 
Take, for instance, the egg. He says, that in this egg is a 
natural law by which the chicken is ultimately evolved. Most 
assuredly. We admit this position to be a fact — a fact as 
clear as that the sun shines, and you will not ask me to prove 
that the sun shines, because you can not see it through this 
roof But while we admit that the law is in the egg that it 
shall evolve a chicken, not a man, does it follow that the law 
is in the chicken that two chickens, hatched in the same nest, 
shall not quarrel ? (Applause and laughter.) As soon as the 
chickens are evolved they begin to act — and they act for them- 
selves, and, by and by, if one interferes with what the other 
supposes to be his rights, they fall to quarreling. If the law 
by which they were governed was perfect, why should we see 
any quarrel between them? So with man. Does the law 
that brings into existence, under given circumstances, a man, 
and not an animal, regulate the mind and brain of the man 
after he is brought into existence 1 He referred us to man, 
and said, " that in man there is a law, not only to bring him 
into existence, but to regulate the man afterward ;" and we 
were told that, " that law to regulate the man is in the brain." 
We love to hear men speak as if they had brains, and as if 
brains were necessary to make a man. We admit that there 
is a law woven into the brain of man, and that the result of 



116 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

that law is thought ; but does that law regulate the thoughts 
of the man ; make him think in a given channel ; prevent 
him from quarreling with his fellow ; does it always lead him 
right ? 

The speaker (Mr. Dorrance), this morning, ingeniously put 
us, as it were, upon trial, to see whether we could or not 
decide any thing ourselves ; and really, at first sight, it looked 
like a position that would stand. He says, " Tell any man 
that two and two make twenty, and would they believe it f 
Well, at first, I thought that no one could ; but I ag-ain 
thought within myself, " How do you know that two and two 
are not twenty f " I know it," says an individual ; " I know 
it; I have it in here^'' in the heart, where some folks have all 
their religion. " I have an internal knowledge of it ; I have 
it in my brain ; in my senses." But suppose that the law 
that decides the manner of counting said, that two units should 
be called twenty instead of four, or that four units should be 
called twenty instead of four, what would become of your in- 
ternal knowledge. We know that two and two are not twenty, 
because the laiv regulating numbers has decided that twenty 
units shall be called twenty, and not four. In this case, as in 
all others, the human mind devolves the matter by an ade- 
quate law. 

Then said the speaker, " I am sixty feet high." Well, his 
thoughts are sixty feet above every one who thinks that 
because a man who calls in question the Divine authenticity 
of the Bible is an infidel, and that no question should be dis- 
cussed with him. " Will any body," said the speaker, 
" believe that I am sixty feet high ? You know better." But 
how do you know that he is not sixty feet high ? Suppose that 
it was decreed by the law of measurement that sixty inches 
should be counted sixty feet, would he not be sixty feet high ? 
methinks he would be considerably more than sixty feet high. 
Don't you see that the law of measurement governs your 
mind, and decides this question by determining the length of 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVEKTION. 117 

a foot 1 The last speaker in favor of the idea that this law, 
by which the Bible is to be judged, is in the human breast, 
says as an evidence that there is a law in the human mind, 
" The natural religion of the red man of the forest teaches 
him the law of right." He calls our attention to the red man ; 
to the savage tribes, that have not been interfered with by the 
religious institutions of our day ; with what the heathen calls, 
when they come into his land, Christians. But can we learn 
from the red man of the forest that the infallible law by which 
the Bible is to be judged is in the human mind '? We were 
told that the red man of the forest generally worshiped a 
Supreme Being. Admit this of many tribes, and then do we 
know ; do we learn from them in their subsequent religious 
rights, that the law by which this question and other ques- 
tions of like moment are to be decided, is in the breast ; is in 
the man "? What does the law within the savage breast teach 
him that he should do '? It teaches him that he shall revenge 
his supposed wrongs, even upon his own red brethren of the 
forest ; and do you not see him do it, relentlessly and unre- 
mittingly, and that at the distance of years — keep it as it were 
a sacred trust committed to him by his father 1 and he wall 
not only revenge his own w^'ongs but the wrongs of his father 
or his great-grandfather, if the man remember that wrong. 
The tenderer part of the human family — the females, are the 
most degraded slaves — are treated as things of little or no 
use, as the Southerner uses hrs slave. What did the wild 
man show that he was taught by this natural law of right and 
wrong when the white man entered upon his dominions ? 
Why, he regarded the coming of the white man to this con- 
tinent as an invasion of his rights. Now^, what does the law 
within tell him he ought to do 1 That law says he ought to 
meet him and oppose him at every step. Have the savage 
tribes retired beyond the Rocky Mountains because a law of 
right has told them that they ought to give away to the white 
man or pale man*? No, sir, they have gone there, because 



118 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

driven there by force. Their own judgment is still convinced 
that the white man ought to be sorely punished, and had they 
the power committed to them, though they are reduced to a 
handful, you would find the law of the savage mind there 
still — they would punish, yea, exterminate their enemies. 

As the doctrine of the immortality of the soul supposed to 
be taught by the Bible has several times been adverted to, I 
desire to say a few words concerning it. I wish we could 
placard the truth on this great subject in characters of living 
fire on the blue arch of the universe, that no such doctrine is 
taught in the Bible. The natural immortality of the soul is 
a doctrine that has been entirely originated in the human 
brain, and if that brain is the infallible law^ then the doctrine 
of the natural immortality of the soul is of course true ; but 
such folly is not chargeable to the Bible. We say, then, 
that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not taught 
in the Bible ; and because we defend this truth, we feel, so far 
as a public name is concerned, that we are brethren ; at least 
they call us all infidels. Very well ; they may charge me with 
infidelity. I publish it to the world, and would that with my 
own hands I could write it in living lines of light and give it 
to the four winds of heaven that the Bible does not teach the 
doctrine of natural immortality ; but, at the same time, we 
do aver that life and immortality are brought to light in the 
Gospel, which Gospel we stand here to defend, but that life 
and immortality are only to be received through the resur- 
rection from the dead. In all the Gospel, I repeat, which we 
stand here to defend, and which we love, you will find it 
constantly written that life and immortality are to be given 
to man beyond the resurrection of the dead, and we teach in 
perfect harjnony with this that when this 7nan^ in being, rea- 
soning to-day, full of life and energy, flills into the cold em- 
brace of death, he lies there just as unconscious as the dust 
into which he flills, until the trump of that coming one breaks 
that slumber and gives him life. The speaker the last upon 



HAEtFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 119 

the floor then said, as he was drawing his remarks to a close, 
that we should not appeal to the brute creation to learn any- 
thing of natural religion. He is astonished that we should 
refer to the broad laws of nature so as to learn any thing 
of natural religion from the brutes. We must not descend 
below the human species ; not go below man, to learn any 
thing of this natural religion. If, Mr. Chairman, there is a 
natural religion, does not that natural religion rise from some 
basis, and from its beginning reach its climax 1 Is there any 
thing on earth without a beginning ? Does natural religion 
begin and end with man 1 Well, then, grass has nothing to 
do with it. Why then refer to the grass 1 

Mr. Finney — The statement that I am represented as 
making is, that we should not appeal to the brute creation for 
natural religion — for evidences of it. Gentlemen, I made no 
such claim. The sentiment advanced was that we should not 
appeal to any lower forms in nature to govern man in his 
higher developments — that the lower forms were adapted to 
their own plane and sphere, and that men must not take lower 
forms for their entire standard. (Applause.) 

Mr. Turner— I would not knowingly misrepresent the re- 
marks of any man upon the other side of the question. The 
speaker says we should not appeal for evidence of natural re- 
ligion to any thing lower than man ; or, to exercise our judg- 
ment, if I understand him, in regard to man and natural religion, 
we must not appeal below him — that man being so much 
above the brute, so much above the animal race, he has in 
himself a perfect right to do what he will with the brute 
creation, because he is above the brute creation. The brute 
must submit that man should do with him just as he pleases, 
because he is a brute. Now, when there is a God above men, 
what shall he do with man"? Must man submit because there 
are agencies or beings above him 1 or is he a being independ- 
ent, and must God himself bow to man 1 We are thrown at 
once upon the very position before taken, that if there be a 



120 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

liiw ill natural religion, then there is a beginning. It has its 
germination somewnere — it rests on a basis somewhere, and 
rises to its climax. Is man a grade of being in the race of 
beings, or did he grow after the manner geology says the earth 
grew ? If he is what the Bible informs- us he must be, is he 
amenable to some higher power, or is he the lord of all crea- 
tion? If, then, he is lord of all, why, then, he is the verij law 
which our opponents claim. Then he ought to decide the 
character of the Bible, and he needs no revelation nor light 
above himself; but if he is only a grade of being in the scale 
of beings, there are beings above him. If it be admitted that 
there is a Creator behind him, then that Creator has a right to 
do with him as he pleases, just as really as the man has to do 
so with something below him, provided he has all the claims 
the Creator has upon man ; but man could never create the 
first animal. And God, or something else, has created you 
and me ; and call the Creator what you will. He or it is the 
first cause — and that is the law higher than man, to which the 
brute must appeal. The Creator has the undeniable right of 
disposal. My friend says the brute must appeal up to man, 
because man is a higher order of being, and v/hatever he de- 
crees, the brute must tamely submit — must yield obedience. 
The whole brute creation must tamely submit, because man 
is above him. If so, unless we can show that man is the root 
of creation — the highest being — we must find a law by which 
our reasons are to be regulated. The ox has reason. Sir, I 
know 4;hey call men infidels for saying this. We know, how- 
ever, that the ox reasons. Now, is the reason of the ox, of 
the horse, and of all animals that we make subservient to our 
will, to be dictated to by us 1 Are they to be governed by 
laws we enact ? Certainly. Then what law governs us — and 
to what law should we appeal? The friend last up said that 
Jesus, in his doctrine, did not appeal to the law of Moses, but 
threw man back upon his own nature — upon the law within 
himself. The text, I suppose, referred to (for it was not 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 121 

quoted), is this : " Why judge ye not of your own selves 
what is right f In this, it is supposed that Jesus conveyed 
the idea that there is no appeal from the law instituted by him- 
self, to the law of God gone before — and that is, a simple ap- 
peal from all law — from all Scripture, to the law within each 
individual's heart. Is this doctrine true 1 Jesus said, " The 
law and the prophets were until John, since which the king- 
dom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it, and 
it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle 
of this law to fiiil." "I come not to destroy the law, but to 
fulfill it."" Jesus says to the unbelieving Jews that were ready 
to take him and sacrifice him, " If ye had believed in Moses, 
ye would have believed in me ; for he spoke of me." In 
these appeals to Moses — and we might speak of a dozen in- 
stances where Christ directly appealed to Moses. Christianity 
is directly founded on the preceding economy. But what 
of the text? "Does not Jesus,",, says the hearer, "really 
throw man back upon this law within himself? for he says, 
* Why judge ye not within yourselves what is right V " Read 
the text in its connection. By what law were they to judge 
what is right 1 There was a law constantly appealed to by 
the Saviour, and by that law they were to judge what is right. 
They had the law, and read it every day. They did not know 
what the law was ; they did not understand what was taught 
in it ; therefore Jesus said : " Why judge ye not by your own 
selves ]" I see you have a mind capable of receiving — why 
do you not judge by that law which you have received from 
Moses for yourselves ? 

Mr. Joseph Barker then arose, and said : It appears to me 
astonishing that those individuals who appear as defenders of 
the Divine origin and authority of the Bible should be willing 
to leave the question in the condition in which it is at present. 
It seems strange to me that no attempt should be made by 
them to answer the charges which have been preferred against 

6 



122 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

the Bible. It seems strange that hour after hour should be 
spent in talking about a law by which the Bible is to be tried, 
instead of at once attempting to refute the charges preferred 
against it. If I had been in the place of our opponents, I 
would not have allowed the Bible to remain for one moment 
in the doubtful position in which they have allowed it to 
remain so long. I would at once, myself, have stated the law 
by which the Bible should be tried ; I would have proved the 
law to be a just and proper one ; and then have proceeded to 
refute the charges by appeals to that law. (Cries of hear, 
hear.) But our opponents have had their reasons for the 
course they have pursued ; and we will not inquire into those 
reasons, but pursue our own course. I have a few remarks to 
make with reference to the remarks made by the speaker who 
last occupied the stand. (Mr. Turner.) After noticing his 
remarks I shall briefly recapitulate what has been advanced 
on our side of the question" and show what has been said by 
our opponents in reply. 

When Mr. Turner sat down, he was laboring to make the 
impression, that when Jesus said, " Why judge ye not of 
yourselves what is right ?" his meaning was, " Why do yc 
not examine by the law of Moses, and ascertain for yourselves 
what is right, and just, and true, and goodf Now Jesus 
could not mean that, for he had set the law of Moses aside. 
He had told his disciples, that though it was said in the law 
of Moses, " an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," yet 
the proper course was not to resist evil. Again he had said, 
" It was said by those of old time, ' Whoever shall put away 
his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement ;' but I say 
unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the 
cause of fornication, causeth her to coaimit adultery ; and 
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adul- 
tery." After Jesus had set aside the law of Moses, he could 
not regard it or refer to it as a standard. 

[Mr. Turner explained at this point, that he understood the 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 123 

law by which the disciples were to judge what was right, to 
be the law or doctrine of Christ.'] 

Then (said Mr. Barker) Christ is to be judged by Christ, 
although Christ himself says, " If I bear witness of myself, my 
witness- is not true." (Applause and laughter.) Our oppo- 
nents are perpetually calling out, " By what laio do we judge 
the Bible 1" We answer : we confine ourselves to no one 
law ; we confine ourselves to no two laws ; we appeal to no 
three or four laws ; and prove it partly by them all. We 
prove the Bible to be inconsistent with itself. We prove it 
to be inconsistent with our own nature. We prove it to be 
inconsistent with the revelations of science. We prove it to 
be inconsistent with our own experience. Is not this enough? 
If not, tell us what you want. Lay down the law yourselves. 
We are not ambitious to lay down the law by which to judge 
the Bible ; we shall be satisfied to abide by any law by 
which such a question can be decided. If our opponents would 
really bring forward a law, and give us any reason to consider 
it a just law by which to judge the Bible, we would judge it 
by their law. We would meet them on their own grounds. 
We should be able to prove by any law or standard of 
judgment, that the common notions regarding the Jewish 
and Christian Scriptures are altogether foundationless. Let us 
now review the ground we have traveled. Perhaps most of 
our hearers will remember the character of the remarks we 
made at the opening of this Convention. We stated our views, 
first, in respect to the origin of the Scriptures, observing that 
we knew nothing of the persons who wrote these Scriptures ; 
that the time wke?i they were written was unknown ; that the 
alterations through which they had passed were so numerous 
that they could not be told. We stated that there was no 
evidence with which we were acquainted that they originated 
in any Divine interposition of Providence ; at the same time 
we asked for any information that could be given by any one 
on the opposite side in reference to this point. 



124: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Our next remarks were on the authority of the Bible. We 
observed, first, that we knew of no Bible in existence that 
even the clergy themselves would say was a book of Divine 
authority. We began with the common version of the Bible, 
and showed that no theologian, no priest, no Gospel minister, 
chose to abide by it as an authority, but regularly referred to 
what he considered the Greek and Hebrew original. We I 
then observed that what are called the Greek and Hebrew | 
originals were not one, but many, and that they all differed — 
that they differed seriously — that they were all the work of 
fallible men — that no one, therefore, would choose to abide 
by the Greek text of the New Testament, or by the Hebrew ; 
text of the Old Testament, but would appeal, when they felt ^ 
themselves pressed, from these texts to the manuscripts from i 
which they were compiled. i 

We then proceeded to state that biblical critics themselves ( 
informed us that there were more than one hundred and fifty c 
thousand various readings of these manuscripts; that the 
manuscripts were the work of erring men, and that therefore t 
they could not appeal to those manuscripts as decisive author- a 
ity. We then showed that there was nothing beyond these ^j 
manuscripts to which we could appeal — that the original pro -f; 
ductions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Solomon, David, Matthew, and !• 
Paul, and the like, if such works ever did exist, were lost — 
that the last of them had been lost some fifteen or sixteen 
centuries ago ; and that, therefore, there was no book called 
the Bible that the clergy themselves could claim to be of Di t 
vine and absolute authority. ^ 

The point, then, of authority is given up. It is acknowl- 
edged that there is no authoritative Bible in existence, even 
if there ever was such a thing. 

Our next remarks went to prove that the contents of the 
book itself showed that it was not the book of God. I re- 
ferred to its historical content^?, beginning with its professed 
history of creation, showing that that history contradicted 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 125 

facts. If the Bible declares that there is a solid framework 
over our heads — that in this framework sun, moon, and stars 
are fixed — that all the waters from which the showers come 
are placed above that framework — that the water is let down 
through windows, etc., and if we see in nature no such thing — 
if, on the contrary, we have evidence that there is no such 
thing, it is proved that the Bible errs, and that, therefore, it 
can not be a book of Divine authority. That the Bible does 
thus err, we showed that theologians themselves acknowledged. 
Professor Hitchcock, Dr. Pye Smith, and numbers of other 
theological critics, acknowledge that the statements of the 
Bible in reference to these points are not scientifically true. 
Even though they believe that God wrote the very words of 
the book, they say that he used erroneous forms of expres- 
sion in condescension to human ignorance — adapting his 
thoughts to the ideas of men ; w^hich in plain English means 
that God wrote falsehoods. 

So with respect to other statements in the account of crea- 
tion ; we showed that some of those statements contradicted 
each other, and that others of them were proved to be false 
by our own experience — observe— r-5y our own experience. 
These charges have not been met. We next showed that the 
Bible contained false theology. We referred to the scriptural 
representations of God. He is represented in several places 
as a man, as walking, as talking, washing his feet, eating veal, 
wrestling with a man, and being beaten by him. He is rep- 
resented as living at a distance from the world, as being per- 
sonally unacquainted with what was going on on the earth, as 
deriving his information from servants, and when, having rea- 
son to distrust the truthfulness of his messengers, he is repre- 
sented as saying that he would go down to the earth and see 
for himself. The Scriptures represent him as not knowing 
what was in man's heart — as being uncertain whether Abra- 
ham did really fear him or not, until he tried him, by com- 
manding Jiim to offer up his only son as a sacrifice. 



126 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

God is represented not only as subject to all human weak- 
nesses, but, what is worse, he is represented as exceedingly 
unjust — as subjecting all women to the most grievous calami- 
ties, simply because one woman sinned before any of the rest 
were born — and as subjecting all serpents to a curse because 
one serpent did a wrong. God is also represented as cursing 
the earth for man's sake, forcing every individual to eat of the 
fruit of the ground with sorrow all the days of his life. He 
is represented as guilty of the worst of crimes, the grossest 
injustice, and the most frightful cruelty. 

We next referred to the morality of the Bible, showing 
that it contradicted what we know to be right. We gave 
many instances of its bad morality. We did not content our- 
selves with saying that the Bible contradicted what we learn 
to be true from other quarters, but showed that it contradicted 
in one part what it taught in other parts — teaching in one pas- 
sage that God punished the whole world for the sin of one or 
two ; then, again, declaring that " the son shall not bear the 
iniquity of the father, nor the father the iniquity of the son ; 
but that the soul that sinneth, it shall die." And so on other 
subjects. 

Not one word is said by our opponents about all this. In- 
stead of answering these charges — instead of trying to refute 
them, they simply ask, " By what law do you condemn the 
Bible V To adapt ourselves to their apparent weakness, we 
stooped to state by what law we deemed the Bible should be 
tried. For myself, I stated that I considered the law suggest- 
ed by Jesus, in the words addressed to the unfoithful servant, 
was sufficient : "Out of thine own mouth will I condemn 
thee." If I can prove that a man is inconsistent with himself, 
that he acts contrary to what he lays down as his rule of life, 
I have all the proof I want that he is not what he should be. 
I prove him wrong by his own confession — by his own princi- 
ples. I condemn him out of his own mouth. And if I prove 
that the Bible, which is put forward as a book of Divine au- 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 127 

thority, of absolute truth, contradicts itself — that it says one 
thing in one place, and says the opposite in another place — if 
I prove that the Bible in one place represents God as merci- 
ful, and then in another place represents him as cruel — if I 
prove that the Scriptures in one case represent God as punish- 
ing with death the child for the sin of the father, and then in 
another case represent him as declaring that in no case will 
he do such a thing, and acknowledging that it would be unjust 
to do such a thing — if in one case we find the Bible forbidding 
murder, while in another case it represents God as command- 
ing murder — if in one case we find that the Bible declares that 
all liars shall have their portion in the lake of fire and brim- 
stone, while, in other parts of the Bible, God is represented as 
declaring that certain eminent liars walked, in all respects, 
blameless before him, do we need any other proof that the 
claims put forth in behalf of the book are false 1 Is not the 
book proved imperfect by its own testimony 1 Do we need 
any other law by which to convict the Bible of imperfection 1 
— by which to prove that it is not a work of Divine and ab- 
solute authority 1 We repeat. Will any man here stand up 
and say that we need any other law by which to try the Bible 
than the Bible itself? (Cries of " No ! no !" and applause.) 

But suppose that our opponents should still say, " We want 
another law by which to try the Bible." We give them 
another law ; and that, too, in accordance with the teachings 
of the Bible itself The Bible tells us that nature reveals the 
character of God, and that it reveals not only God's power 
and intelligence, leaving unrevealed his moral character, but 
all that can be known of him, his moral as his natural perfec- 
tions. The Bible expressly teaches, as may be seen by ref- 
erence to the words of Paul, in the first chapter of his Epistle 
to the Romans, that nature reveals God's character both fully 
and clearly. Paul says, " Because that which may be known 
of God''"' — that is, all that may be known of God, for he 
makes no exceptions — " that which may he known of God is 



128 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

manifest to them ; for God hath showed it unto them." How % 
He says, " The invisible things of God" — ^his attributes, with- 
out any exception — "from the creation of the world are dearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His 
eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse." 
(Applause.) Here, then, as the poet says, " The whole God- 
head" — for the writer makes no exception, no limitations — 
" the whole Deity is known." " All that which may be known 
of God" is revealed by God, and is so revealed that it may 
" clearly be seen ;" hence he says, " so that they are without 
excuse" — without excuse, for not knowing, as his words after- 
ward plainly mean, that God was a benevolent father, and 
for not being thankful to him. And this same Paul says, 
that the moral law, the rule of life, is written on men's hearts, 
thus teaching us that men may know what is right or wrong, 
what is good or evil, by consulting their own hearts, by 
comparing things with what is written there. Hear his words : 
" When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the 
things contained in the law, these having not the law are a 
law unto themselves ; which show the work of the law written 
in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one 
another." Here, then, w^e have another law by which to judge 
the teachings of the Bible. The Bible itself authorizes us to 
condemn whatever is contrary to the renditions of nature, or 
to the law of ' right written on our hearts. Paul himself 
judges things by this law. 

We refer you again to what he says in the preceding chap- 
ter with regard to certain practices prevailing among the na- 
tions. Does Paul describe certain bad passions or practices 
as sins against Moses 1 Nothing of the kind. He speaks of 
men as being " without natural affections." He speaks of 
" forsakmg the natural use" of their own bodies, and having 
recourse to that which is wwnatural or not natural ; plainly 
laying it do\Yn that there is a "natural use," which may be 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 129 

known by all to be right, and an unnatural use, which may be 
known by all to be wrong. With Paul, then, that w^hich is 
" natural" is good, and that which is unnatural is bad. Na- 
ture, then, is the standard of good. (Applause.) Nature is 
the standard of theology. By nature, then — nature in gene- 
ral, and our own nature in particular — we may try the teach- 
ings of the Bible, both on theology and morals. 

We have other proof of this. What is God's glory "? We 
are often told by theologians that God's goodness is his glory. 
Yet the Bible says the heavens declare or reveal the glory of 
God. They add that the earth is full of God's goodness. The 
Psalmist then thought that he could see God's goodness in 
nature. He also thought that others might do so, for he 
says, " The works of the Lord are great, and sought out of all 
them that have pleasure therein." 

Again, if God can not be known by his works^ how can he 
be known ? A man is known by his works. The selfish man 
is known by his niggardly conduct. We know the generous 
man by his efforts to promote the improvements and happi- 
ness of his fellow-men "? We know even a tree by its fruits, 
and can not we know God by his works ? God has presented 
more works to our view than any man has, and marks as in- 
dicative of his character. If from the infinite variety of God's 
works we can not ascertain the character of God, how can we 
expect to learn the character of a man from his comparatively 
few works 1 And how shall we know God by his words, sup- 
posing him to speak in words, unless we first know him by 
his works 1 If we can not know that God is true before he 
speaks to us, how can we know that his words are true ? Ac- 
cording to what our friends say, for any thing we can know to 
the contrary, God may lie. If we can not know whether God 
is true or not without the Bible, how can we know that what 
he says in the Bible is true 1 The Bible tells us that God is 
truthful, and will not lie ; but how do we know that the dec- 
laration of the Bible is true, unless we know, beforehand, 

6* 



130 PE0CEEDING8 OF THE 

from nature, that God is true ? Unless we know something 
of the truthfulness and goodness of God by nature, before the 
Bible, how are we to know that God has not given us the Bible 
with the cruel design of destroying us by leading us astray ? 

Again, believers in the Bible generally believe that God's 
qualities may be learned from nature. We often hear them 
arguing thus : " We know from nature that God is all-power- 
ful — that he who formed the eye can see — that he who formed 
the ear can hear; and we know, therefore, that God has 
power to reveal himself; we know that he is good and in- 
clined to do men good ; we conclude, therefore, that it is prob- 
able that God has made a revelation of his will to man." 
After such an argument in the favor of revelation, they pro- 
ceed to say : " If God has given a revelation, where shall we 
find it ? And here, again, they follow a course opposite to 
that of any opponents here." They do not say man can not 
distinguish a true rendition from a false one. They do not 
speak contemptuously of their reason or judgment. They do 
as we do. " This divine revelation is not in the Koran," say 
they. But how do they know that the Koran is not the reve- 
lation of God 1 They will answer, " The Koran can not be a 
revelation of God, because it tells monstrous tales — inculcates 
bad morality — and presents sensual views of the heavenly 
state ; which plainly proves that it came from an erring and 
a sensual mind." But suppose the Mohammedan should say, 
" How do you know that these things which you object to are 
not right ?" By what laiv do you judge the Bible 1 The 
advocate of the Bible would turn away from such question- 
ings with pity and disgust. Such talk might serve to pass 
away an hour ; but they would rather look like an evasion of 
the great question at issue, than like a manifest attempt to 
settle the question in an honest, plain, and common-sense 
manner. 

But I may proceed in my remarks on the Bible. I say 
that the Bible could never serve as an authority ; could never 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 131 

answer the purpose of a standard of truth and virtue, or of 
a rule of faith and duty, its meaning is so doubtful. And 
we htive no infallible interpretation of the Bible. Suppose, 
even, that the Old and New Testaments came from God; 
that they have been preserved perfect, and translated under 
the guidance of the Holy Ghost, what then 1 Are they a 
perfect rule of life? a perfect rule of faith and practice'? 
Nothing of the kind. Let a man attempt to use them as 
such, and what will be the result 1 Eternal uncertainty. Let 
him begin with the New Testament. The first doctrine we 
find announced is, that " Jesus came to save his people from 
their sins." But who are his people 1 Some say the Jews ; 
some God's elect ; some all mankind. Which is right 1 It 
is not decided. He is to save his people from their sins. 
What does that mean 1 How is he to save them from their 
sins ? Is he to save them from the punishment of sin only, 
or from sin itself? Is he to save them by changing their 
natures, or by covering them with his own righteousness, thus 
merely hiding their sins as with a cloak 1 Theologians are 
not agreed ; and the Bible will not settle their disputes. ^All 
is left in uncertainty. Then, again, take the text, " Eepent, 
for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." But what do you 
mean by " repent f What is it to " repent f ' " Well," say 
they, " the original means to change your mind." What is the 
nature, and what the extent of the change required 1 Does 
the Bible say what it is that the mind is to be changed from, 
and what it is to be changed to 1 It does not. Hence, other 
disputes. One supposes one thing is meant, and another sup- 
poses another thing ; and a hundred different things are sup- 
posed to be intended by the word " repent." Here, also, it 
leaves the matter uncertain. 

" But as to morals," say they, " the Bible is perfectly plain, 
and certain." Suppose we quote a few texts from Christ's 
sermon on the Mount, and see. Tlie first passage of that cel- 
ebrated sermon is, " Blessed are the poor in spirit ; for theirs 



132 PEOCEEDINaS OF THE 

is the kingdom of Heaven." Is this quite j^lain 1 What does 
" poor in spirit" mean % Opinions differ. How are we to 
decide as to which is the right meaning % But the meaning is 
not all that is doubtful. The reading is disputed. Some say 
that the words, "in spirit," do not belong in the original. 
That the passage ought to read, " Blessed are . the poor." 
Which is the correct reading ? We are at a loss. Supposing 
the common reading to be right, we ask, what does " poor in 
spirit" mean ? A Chinese once translated the words, " Blessed 
are the mean, low, niggardly spirited." This will hardly be 
thought a good rendering. " Well," says one, " it means 
humility ; it means, ' Blessed is the man that is poor, and yet 
not troubled on that account.'" Says another, "It means, 

* Blessed are those who have low views of themselves.' " And 
thus they differ, and thus they may differ for ever. Then the 
very first passage on moral subjects can not be surely or 
satisfactorily interpreted. It is, then, no rule of practice. We 
do not know what "paverty of spirit" is ; and if we did, we 
might not think it a virtue. 

The next text is, "Blessed are they that mourn, for they 
shall be comforted." What is it " to mourn V " It means 
to weep, lament, and cry." Do you mean to say that all who 
weep and lament are happy ? " No," you say, " that is not 
reasonable." And do you reason, then, on this subject? It 
says, "Blessed are they that mourn." "Well," say you, 
" we can't think that all that mourn are blessed." It must 
mean some particular kind of mourning. Thus, then, it 
appears that what you mean by your Bible is not simply the 
Bible as it stands, but something which you put into its words. 
You put your own ideas of what is right and reasonable into 
the words, and call them your Bible. Some say, " It means, 

* Blessed are those that mourn for their sins.' " How do you 
know it does ? If Jesus had meant that, he could have said 
it as easily as you can. He either did not mean it, or else he 
purposely left the matter in such a doubtful state that the 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 133 

words can not be of any use as a standard of right. I believe 
Jesus meant literally, " Blessed are those that mourn or weep, 
and blessed are the poor." He appears to have believed 
wealth and mirth as damnable, and poverty and sorrow as 
saving ; and to do this is in agreement with other parts of the 
Gospel. Take another passage : " Think not that I am come 
to destroy the law or the prophets ; I am not come to destroy, 
but to fulfill." Well, what does the word "fulfill" mean? 
" It only means that Jesus came to complete the law and make 
it a broad rule of life." Jesus says, " Whosoever shall break 
one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall be 
called least in the kingdom of Heaven." What means this? 
Are all the commandments of the law of Moses still in force, 
not excepting the least? That can not be. Jesus himself 
broke some of these " least commandments, and taught men 
so." Then we are still at a loss to understand what Jesus did 
mean. If he meant what he said, then the law of Moses is 
still the rule of life, and every man who professes to be a 
Christian is bound to obey it. 

There is another passage : " Judge not, that ye be not 
judged." What ! must you not judge at all ? " Oh, yes, 
we must judge on some subjects. We must judge whether 
the Bible is true or not." The words say, " Judge not." 
What does "judge" mean ? "It means ^rash judging,' " say 
some. But how do you know that it means " rash judging V 
If Jesus meant "rash judging," could he not have said so as 
well as you % But suppose that he meant " rash judging," 
I ask you, if you have any standard in your mind by which 
you can determine when judging is " rasW and when it is 
not 1 If you have not, you must take the law as it stands, 
and never judge again, not even your opponents on this stand, 
" lest ye be judged." If you say it means something different 
from what it says, you make your minds the standard of 
right, and only take the Bible when you have made it speak 
your own ideas. 



134: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

There is another passage : " Whosoever is angry with his 
brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." 
'• Whoever is angry without a cause." Why, whoever was 
angry with his brother without cause ? Every one who is 
angry has some cause. " Oh, it nnieans a just cause." W^hy, 
then, does it not say so 1 And as it does not say so, how do 
you know that it means a "just cause f "Because the pas- 
sage would not be reasonable ; not worthy of God as it 
stands. The word ''just'' must be put in to make it worthy 
of God." Then you think you can mend the Bible by that 
which is in your own mind "? Yet you say the law by which 
the Bible is to be tried is not in the mind. [Time expired.] 
(Applause.) 

Mr. PiLLSBURT remarked that the words, " without a cause," 
in the text that had been just commented upon by Mr. Bar- 
ker, were supposed to have been put in by the translators. 

Mr. William Lloyd Garrison said, as Rev. Mr. Turner 
was about rising to speak, that he hoped that if there were 
any other persons desirous of speaking in favor of the Bible, 
besides Messrs. Turner and Storrs, they would be allowed to 
do so. He hoped that the whole time on that side of the 
question would not be taken up by those two gentlemen to 
the exclusion of all others. 

Rev. Mr. Turner then came to the platform, and remarked 
as follows : I do not wish to come forward as if I crowded 
myself forward ; nor do I wish to stand here and speak if my 
speaking is deemed an intrusion. All I ask in the premises 
is this : I wish to stand here just as long as a representative is 
wanted on my side of the question, when another of my 
brethren is not ready to step forward. It would be my 
choice to be in my own room retired, on account of my 
health. 

Mr. President, I shall not insist probably upon all the time 



HAETFOPwD BIBLE CONVENTION. 135 

allowed me by previous agreement. We are charged, very 
kindly it is true, in the last speech with avoiding the question 
at issue by a sort of subterfuge. I have charity enough to 
believe that my friend the Chairman in this remark did not 
intend to convey the idea that we wished to dodge the ques- 
tion of canvassing the claims of the Bible. My friend the 
Chairman would not make such a remark as that intending 
such a thought. Is it not a known fact, that when any charge 
is brought against any text or portion of the Bible, that there 
must be some law by which its truth and meaning shall be 
decided ? Is it not a known and an established law in this 
case as in every thing else ? Why, even my friend himself 
admits this fact. He admits that there must be a law by 
which to determine the question debated. The heathen 
claims to know and give that law — the law of natural religion, 
and our argument has been founded upon this point simply, 
that the law adduced was not an adequate law, and we have 
illustrated and proved our position. Now, one single illus- 
tration more, and I pass to something else. The very fact 
that my opponent gives to this audience all the evidence of 
honesty that you can ask — the fact that my friend and myself 
disagree upon this subject — is proof that there is no law in the 
constitution of our natures adequate to decide this question ; 
else why does not my friend think just as I do, and why do 
not I think as my friend does *? 

One point which I shall dwell upon for a little while, is the 
charge of falsehood against the history of the creation. Here 
is one of the gravest charges in fact that is made against the 
Bible. This history, or the history of the creation, is said to 
be untrue. I know that my friend the Chairman has brought 
forward some seeming objections of vast import, but when I 
come to that, I shall ask his questions, and answer them by 
the Bible. Does the friend produce a reason well-founded 
from a right consideration of the record? How does my 
friend prove that the history of creation, recorded in the Bible 



136 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

— in Genesis — (this first book we used to read when children 
with a great deal of reluctance, but have come to read in 
more mature life with some degree of delight) how does he 
propose to prove that the history there recorded is untrue? 
Some internal objections were raised, which I have not 
time to meet now ; but the main thing is that it disagrees 
with science. What science, Mr. Chairman? With the 
science of geology. And how old is geology? it is in its 
swaddling bands. Well, it is, in the estimation of my friend, 
perhaps, and in other minds, perfectly sufficient to test the 
Bible. Supposing geology does array itself against the his- 
tory of the record of the creation of the world, it is supposed 
to be all-sufficient to prove that record untrue ; but let me 
say, Mr. Chairman, geology is but an infant, and partly an 
idiot at that. It is a science in which no two writers agree in 
all its parts. The Bible is said to be wrong, because the 
Bible disagrees with geology ; but geology is right, because it 
contradicts the Bible. We are not an enemy to the science 
of geology ; but, sir, we look with the utmost disdain upon 
the claims of geology as a perfect science. The philosophical 
mind has not to reason half an hour before he sees the fallacy 
of the problems that have been brought before the public as 
infallible laws of geology. 

Suppose some philosophical mind should attempt to get up 
a science of geology, and suppose some one should ask him, 
"How came this tree?" How did the Creator produce the 
tree ? Suppose we are told that the tree was produced from 
its seed. Then is it proved how the Creator produced the seed 1 
The question is this, Did the seed grow, or did the Creator pro- 
duce a tree that produced the seed ? The one is as easily pro- 
duced by the Creator as the other. Then we will for a moment 
proceed to consider the new system of geology proposed upon 
this principle. How did God make the world 1 Did it grow, 
or did he make the world as geology finds it ? The science 
of geology, instead of taking the world as God made it, find- 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 137 

ing certain supposed marks of age in it, runs back to a sup- 
posed beginning, and says the world has grown. This is 
the philosophy that is said to contradict the Bible. " Oh" 
they say, "I demonstrate geology." We deny its demon- 
stration in a great many of its parts, and is the speaker alone 
in denying this. It is known, I presume, to the chair and this 
audience, that geology, in many of its parts, is disputed en- 
tirely by some and received by others — by men, too, equally 
capable of plowing to the depths of the earth. Now, if the 
Bible is to be tried by this science of geology as it now is, the 
first thing to be done is to show us a demonstration of geol- 
ogy in all 4ts parts, and then bring the science of geology to 
this "standard law of nature" that is claimed to be in the 
breast; and let the universal brotherhood of human nature 
say that geology is right ; then we will bring the Bible to the 
standard, and see if the record is true ; for if a law of that 
kind exists in the human mind, that law has a right to be 
satisfied in your mind as well as in mine. If it is a law, it is 
a reliable law ; for it is claimed that truth is immutable, and 
if immutable, then it is immutable alike in all, and must find 
its satisfaction in any problem proposed to it in all alike. 

It is said that the history can not be correct, for it contra- 
dicts astronomy. Does it, indeed'? What part of astronomy 
does it contradict ? Are any particular features of astronomy 
defined that it contradicts? I am not aware that there are 
any that have been defined, and if features are contradicted, 
are these features demonstrated to be absolutely true 1 Are 
all problems in astronomy infallible 1 Some of them are, we 
know, but are all ? Do you know that these heavenly bodies 
are worlds inhabited by people? Do you know any thing 
about it? Much called astronomy is human guess-work. 

If the Bible is claimed to be contradicted by astronomy, 
show us the point in astronomy that contradicts the Bible — 
give us a chance to put our hand on the point, and then we 
will meet this objection, and measure swords over the very 



138 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

huh of the question, and see whether it is correct or not. 
Give us the point ; then show us where that point is — show us 
that it is absolute truth, and if it contradicts the Bible when 
you have shown it absolute, then, sir, we will retreat from our 
position. 

But other things are said to have shown that the Bible 
could not have emanated from a good God. " Why," saya. 
my opponent, " does not the Bible say that ' by man sin en- 
tered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed 
upon all men.' Now, can it be, he asks, that a good God 
can teach such a sentiment 1 What ! Doom a race to death 
because of the sin of one manf Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to know where it is said in the Bible that God doomed a 
race to death on account of the sin of one man. We deny 
that the Bible teaches any thing of the kind. But does not 
the Bible say that "sin entered the world, and death by sin?" 
Yes ; but does it say that God passed death on all men % My 
friend has got before his text. Death has, indeed, passed 
upon all men. Do you expect that a man doomed to mortal- 
ity will propagate a species that can live without dying? 
Can a stream rise higher than its fountain ? Death passed 
upon the posterity of Adam as the necessary result of his 
own mortality. My friend speaks of the curse that was in- 
flicted upon all women for the sin of one woman ; but does the 
Bible say that God, on account of the sin of that one woman, 
doomed her daughters to the same suffering % It says no such 
thing. It is a charge without foundation, Mr. Garrison : but, 
may I ask, is it not a fact that her daughters do suffer. This 
is admitted ; but, sir, we just meet the question here as in the 
former case. Do you expect the stream will rise above its 
fountain 1 Why this suffering 1 Would there be suff*ering if 
it was not for the mortality, the weakness, the disordered state 
of this organism'? No, sir ; and I judge that the speaker this 
morning knows enough of the human frame to know this fact. 
How came this disordered state 1 It is entailed upon the race 



HAETFOED, BIBLE^CONVEl^TION. 139 

of man, not because they have sinned against God directly, 
but because the fountains were .polluted, and the necessity 
follows that the stream should be polluted also. 

Again, it is said that God cursed all serpents on the account 
of the sin of one. Now I am not going to say what that ser- 
pent was ; I only say as I have of the man, and as I have of 
the woman, that all this is a gratuitous charge on the Bible. 
Now, then, if it is proved that all serpents have descended 
from that one, we have only to urge the same argument as 
before — the stream never rises above its fountain ; all gener- 
ated life is of necessity stamped with the attributes of the 
generators. 

But we are told, again, that the record is incorrect, or that 
it is justly chargeable with an appearance of wrong, from the 
fact that it represents God as speaking to Adam after he had 
sinned in the following manner: "Because thou hast done 
this, in the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread u'litil thou 
return unto the ground, for out of it thou wast taken." I un- 
derstand my friend in his first remarks to fix a charge of in- 
consistency at least upon this record, " Because," said he, " who 
knows but that it is proper for man always to sweat, and 
always to work, and always to earn his bread 1" Is it neces- 
sary that we should prove that it was not the design of God 
that man should labor and be an industrious being, in order 
to show that this is a curse pronounced upon man ? Of what 
sort would his labor have been if he had retained his standing 
in the garden 1 Admit, if you please, that he was a being 
constituted for activity — and we love to defend such an idea, 
but we teach also that, under the curse, man was subjected 
to a kind of labor — to a suffering in labor — to a wear in 
labor that he would not have known if he had retained his 
iimocence — if he had stood under the law of God as he was 
charged to stand. This record, or this history, is not doubted 
so far as this is concerned, that by the sweat of the face man 
does eat bread. How is the bread of the human family ob- 



14:0 ^ ^^^ocEEp^ijyjs jc^^.;t^'e 

tained ? It is in the sweat of the face — perspiration, indicating 
waste. 

The Bible says not only, " In the sweat of thy face shalt 
thou eat bread until thou returnest unto the ground ; for out 
of it wast thou taken," but it says, " Dust thou art, and unto 
dust thou shalt return !" Did God form man of the dust of 
the ground 1 This was his origin. We see the human being 
come into existence. We see him hurried down by disease, 
or accident, as the case may be, as he comes to the grave ; 
and in a little while we look for that once loved form, but we 
see it not. It has returned to its dust. So it is written. One 
side of the statement of man's oriojiu and doom we agree is true. 
It is always before our eyes ; and is the other part to be relied 
on — was man formed of the dust of the ground 1 and if not, 
tell us how he came into being. The latter part of this declara- 
tion is now justified by almost every individual in this creation. 
Scarce is there a heart here that has not bled over the ravages 
of death. Scarce is there a heart here that does not mourn 
the absence of dear friends that have moldered back to dust. 

This record does not say that all men are reduced to dust 
on account of, or because of, that one man's sin. My friend 
probably thinks of one text that he will quote, and we will take 
this opportunity to explain it. " So death passed upon all 
men ; for that all have sinned." " Were they to sin by con- 
sent? If not, then how have they sinned 1" We are driven 
back to the single position that they sinned only in our federal 
head, and die the Adaniic death only descended from the man 
that had follen into a dying state. 

We read well another text, that, " As in Adam all die, even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive." How do they die ? 
They go to the dust. How are they made alive from the 
dust? We hope only in the resurrection from the dead. 
Just as men die, go down to dust, so in Christ will the same 
all be made alive from that death, but every man in his own 
order. It is said that the Scriptures contradict themselves. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 14:1 

The most prominent contradiction claimed is this, referring to 
the declaration that men die on account of the sin of one man, 
sin having entered into the world by woman. It is said that it 
is inconsistent to believe in the Bible, because it teaches such 
a doctrine in one part, when in another place it says, " The 
child shall not die for the sin of the father." Had my friend 
quoted the whole text, we should have been better satisfied. 
The whole text says that this proverb has been used concern- 
ing the land of Israel, but they shall no more have occasion 
to use this proverb in Israel, but that this should be God's law 
hereafter. What? Why, "The soul that sinneth, it shall 
die." Children shall not die for their father; nor the father 
on account of the sin of the child. Does my friend (Mr. 
Barker) claim that the same death is in view in this text that 
was in view in the text compared with this ? There is some- 
thing to do besides quoting texts when you are going to 
quarrel with the Bible. Does not that book talk of a second 
death % Which of the deaths has it in view in this case ? 
Does God intend to say that the human family shall not die, 
since they have descended from Adam 1 No, sir, he intends 
no such thing. He intends, as you will see from the context, 
that death which is the penalty of your own transgression ; 
and that is not the death of Adam, so that no change or con- 
tradiction has taken place in the Bible. It is only blurring 
things up with a disordered mind, that makes the Bible con- 
tradict itself. 

In part, my friend misunderstood me in regard to my ref- 
erence to Christ, and the words teaching the law. He says 
in his remarks that Christ came not to destroy the law ; but 
he says that Christ does teach that law, and we are under the 
law, and it is authoritative ; in another place he says it does 
not teach that law. 

Mr. Barker said : I did not say what law Jesus spoke of. 
All I said was, that no one could ascertain from the Bible 
what law he refers to. 



142 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Rev. Mr. Turner — Now the question is asked, "What 
law does he refer to f I was astonished this afternoon to 
see my friend make his best argument from the writings of 
the apostle. Does not that poition to which he referred teacJi 
what law was intended, and that the law did not expire until 
Christ was nailed to the cross 1 We have only just to mark 
the way-boards that the Scripture places upon Jihe track, and 
there is no difficulty — and only apparent contradictions are 
made by a neglect of these directories. 

Mr. William Lloyd Garrison then said : I do not rise to 
peak, but to read some resolutions. We are not here to as- 
certain whether Calvinism, Lutheranism, or any other ism is 
right or WTong ; but the object is to ascertain whether the 
Bible as a whole is of God, and was given by Divine inspira- 
tion. I propose, this evening or to-morrow, to speak to the 
following resolutions : 

1st. — Resolved, That the doctrines of the American church and 
priesthood, that the Bible is the Word of God ; that whatever it con 
tains •was given by Divine inspiration ; and that it is the only rule of 
faith and practice, is self-evidently absurd, exceedingly injurious both 
to the intellect and soul, highly pernicious in its application, and a 
stumbling-block in the way of human redemption. 

2d. — Resolved, That this doctrine has too long been held as a potent 
weapon in the hands of time-serving commentators and designing 
priests, to beat down the rising spirit of religious liberty, and to dis- 
courage scientific development — to subserve the interests of blind 
guides and false teachers, and to fill all Christendom with contention 
and strife ; and, therefore, the time has come to declare its untruth- 
fulness, and to unmask those who are guilty of this imposture. 

3d. — Resolved, That " the Word of God is not bound" either within 
the lids of any book, or by any ecclesiastical edict ; but, like its Divine 
Author, was before all books, and is everywhere present, and from 
everlasting to everlasting — ever enunciating the same law, and requir- 
ing the same obedience, " being quick and powerful, and sharper than 
any two-edged sword"— the Bible itself being witness. 

4th. — Resolved, That it is a secondary question as to when, where, 
or by whom the books of the Old and New Testaments Avere written ; 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 14:3 

but the primary and all-important question is, what do they teach and 
command ? And in order to ascertain this, they are to be as freely 
examined, and as readily accepted or rejected, as any other books, ac- 
cording as they are found worthless or valuable. 

5th. — Resolved, That it is the climax of audacity and impiety for 
this nation to pretend to receive the Bible as the inspired Word of 
God, and then to make it a penal offense to give it to any of the mil- 
lions who are held as chattel slaves on its soil, thus conspiring to make 
them miserable here and hereafter. 

6th. — Resolvedy That judging them by their course of action toward 
all the reforms of the age, and their position in society, the clergy of 
this country, as a body, would as readily burn the Bible to-morrow, 
if public sentiment overwhelmingly demanded it, and persecution and 
loss of character should be the result of disobedience, as to-day they 
are found earnest in their indorsement of the plenary inspiration of 
that book, in accordance with public sentiment, 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — Mr. President, the question before this 
Convention for discussion is the origin and authority of the 
book commonly called " the Holy Bible." Our opponents 
opened the argument on their side by demanding very vehe- 
mently, as it seemed to me, the laiv under which the book is 
to be tried. It was objected that if man's own reason and 
conscience be the standard of judgment, then we should have 
as many bibles as there are men. It might be an answer to 
that difficulty to ask, how many have we now, the Church 
furnishing her own law of decisions 1 If we yield our own in- 
dividual judgment to her combined wisdom, her organized 
verdict, then how many bibles, or, rather, interpretations 
(which is virtually the same thing), have we? We surely 
can not be very profoundly penetrated with the unanimity, 
the fraternity of the so-called Christian Church of the country, 
particularly on this subject. He is a pretty learned man who 
knows the name and number of all the sects leaning for sup- 
port on the Bible, even did he know nothing else. He should 
have a conferred degree — a doctor of divisions, if not of 
divinity. 

The spirit, too, which animates these various clans, is not 



IM PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

always the most gentle. We doubters and disbelievers have 
little to Doast of in that direction. But we really need not 
fear to go into the " World's Fair," in New York, for exhibi- 
tion by the side of those who claim authority to settle all 
theological questions for us, and to give us the example of a 
true Christian life. 

We might ask, Mr. Chairman, of these self-constituted 
lights and guides of ours, if there be any standard whatever 
by which to test the character of this book, and if there be, is ' 
it any thing but somebody's personal opinion and judgment. . 
It may be that of one person or more. But, after all, what is 
it but the decision of beings just like ourselves ; one it may 
be, or perhaps of many. 

Mr. Storrs declared, with great assurance as well as force, • 
that not a single divine perfection of Deity was taught in 
natural religion. Here now is a most instructive instance of f: 
the agreement there is among believers in the divinity of the ^ 
the Bible. I will illustrate it in a moment. My own ao- \ 
quaintance with books and authorities has been lamentably 
limited. True, I was once taken from the farm and admitted 
by favor and grace into a very short-lived theological semin- 
ary, and there spent most of three years. Then I made a pil- 
grimage to Andover, the Mecca of theological discovery and 
devotion for New England orthodoxy. But all these were a 
poor preparation to meet one in debate, of the age, experience, 
and wisdom of our friend Mr. Storrs. At least such was my 
feeling. It seemed to me rather remarkable, therefore, to 
hear him declare what he did so intrepidly about natural 
religion. The recollection of my old lessons in theology is 
not very vivid. Before venturing any reply, I stepped into a 
book store over the way to refresh my memory. Just as I 
feared, the standard authorities contradict our friend alto- 
gether. They say, "Natural theology is the science which 
treats of the being, attributes, and will of God, as evinced fromi; 
the various phenomena of created objects, and he who can not^ 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 145 

read in the great volume of nature the existence, and, to some 
extent, the character of its Author, would derive little benefit 
from any commentary upon it." 

Which now shall we believe, Mr. Chairman'? You re- 
member with what energy and confidence our friend made his 
declaration. In the same work, the definition of natural re- 
ligion is, " that knowledge, and veneration, and love of God, 
and a practice of those duties to our fellow-men and our- 
selves which are discovered by the right use of our natural 
faculties." 

Here again Mr. Storrs is at variance with the best author- 
ities of the Church. Let him look to it. The definition of re- 
vealed religion is, " that which we derive from the Holy 
Scriptures, as to the resurrection of the dead, and the final 
disposition of the different members of the human family." 
Did not our friend speak with rather too much boldness, both 
as to fact and good taste ?- 

In this matter, then, we agree with the orthodox idea of nat- 
ural religion. Natural religion does teach all we can or need 
know as to the being, perfections, and attributes of the Deity. 
I regret that my brother Storrs is not in the same faith and 
fellowship. 

Mr. Turner said, in evidence of the great necessity of a re- 
vealed religion, and of the insufficiency of natural religion, 
that the Hindoo mother was so debased in her mind and 
spirit, as that she could take her infant children, one after 
another as they were born, and cast them into the Ganges, to 
be devoured by crocodiles or to be drowned. There is a lit- 
tle mistake in my friend's mind as to the reasons why the 
Hindoo mothers do this. That is the result, not of natural^ 
but of revealed religion. That is taught by the Shaster, a 
most voluminous scripture of theirs, in which the Ganges is 
held a holy, consecrated stream — holier to the Hindoo than 
the Jordan to the Jew. 

The mother is taught by the Brahmins, the ordained priests 

7 



14:6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

of Hindoo faith, that the way to procure the favor of the God 
who presides over the Ganges and over her, is to make an 
offering frona time to time of the fruit of her body for the sin 
of her soul. But the missionaries who go there say it has been 
the grief of many mothers to have done it. And they say 
their souls always revolted at the dreadful sacrifice. It was 
so commanded, however, and they submitted. As regards 
the burning of widows on the funeral pile, to which reference 
was also made, it is unknown at the present time. It was 
practiced, however, for the same reason that the mother threw 
her children into the Ganges. It was not done in accordance 
with natural religion. It was a monstrous violation of the 
dictates of natural religion ; and was a part of what our friend 
Wright called the "arbitrary teachings of a devilish theol- 
ogy.''' That was the cause — the entire cause of that terrible 
institution among the Hindoos. Let me show, Mr. Chairman, 
what our artificial religion teaches us. 

I was a member of the Congregational Church. My father 
has long been an orthodox deacon, and my mother has baked 
I know not what number of sacramental loaves ; and so I was 
probably as religiously educated as almost any before me at the 
present moment. I remember there was once a great revival 
of religion in our parish — almost all the young people were 
very much excited upon the subject of religion. A pro- 
tracted meeting was commenced. I remember very well 
some of the teachings of the pulpit in that meeting. One 
day in particular (it was a dark, gloomy day out-doors, but it 
was far darker within), one of the ministers ascended the 
pulpit, and made an appeal to the young. You will not won- 
der, probably, that I should recollect this appeal. It was in 
substance this : " Your parents are now praying for you with 
an mtensity and fervor perhaps unknown to them before. 
God has this afternoon come very near. His presence seems 
hovering over us. We can almost see him with our natural 
eyes. And it is not too much for nie to say, as a minister 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 147 

of the Gospel, fi-om this sacred place, that if you do not now 
embrace the offers of mercy, some of you at least will h&~ 
sealed for damnation — sealed forever." 

Mr. Chairman, it need not be said the interest and excite- 
ment by this time amounted to a frenzy. But the scene was 
not closed yet. The preacher went on : " Those mothers of 
yours are wrestling with God in your behalf with such agony 
of earnestness as you doubtless can not know. But what must 
be your feelings in eternity if you resist all these prayers, 
live on impenitent, and finally die in your sins and sink to 
hell — what must be your feelings, should you be permitted to 
look up from your dread abode to the blissful seats above, 
and behold that mother of yours looking dow^n upon you? 
There you are, tossed upon the billows of the lake of fire and 
brimstone — screwed down under the tortures inflicted by a 
righteous and avenging God. And there stands your now 
praying mother, her work for you all done — all her prayers 
offered, all her counsels given, all her warnings. And as she 
beholds your anguish, and hears your wails and groans rend- 
ing the caverns of your prison, she, too, lifts higher and higher 
her shouts of praise and gratitude to God, glad that His justice 
is honored and His glory increased in your damnation I" 
(Deep sensation.) Such was the appeal. 

So, Mr. Chairman, were we taught ; so, too, alas ! were the 
mothers who bore us and who loved us with all a mother's 
love. What a faith is that which can transform these mothers 
on earth — mothers here in life — to monsters in heaven ! Sir, 
I have seen one of them more than once at the bedside of a 
sick and dying child. In her love and grief she forgot her- 
self; sleep, food, weariness, every thing was uncared for, unfelt 
in the agony she experienced, as her loved one writhed in the 
grasp of the king of terrors. Yet that same mother's minis- 
ter taught her, and she believed that in heaven the unutterable 
and unending misery of that same child might make her su- 
premely blest, the happiest among all the shining ones. 



148 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Natural religion beautifies her as a mother ; artificial re- 
ligion can thus wither her to a monster. She could even 
weep when told of the Hindoo who fed her babe to crocodiles, 
or drowned it in the Ganges. But her own child, not sinking 
in the peaceful Ganges, but in a lake of brimstone burning 
with fire ; not eaten by crocodiles, but torn or tormented with 
those dragon-devils seen and sung in the visions of Patmos — 
her own child so seen and so suffering is to swell her now 
glorified spirit to ecstasies of joy before unknown ! 

Mr. Chairman, contrast a moment the condition of these 
two classes of mothers. The Shaster and the priest who ex- 
pounds it, teach the scenes on the Ganges. But the mission- 
aries tell us, that the sacrifice often almost breaks the mother's 
heart. It is commanded, however, and she bows in sad sub- 
mission. 

Now let her embrace the faith that has been preached to 
us, to you and me. It shall bronze her maternal nature, until 
she too can believe it possible for her to see her children 
plunged, not in " Gunga's stream," their little spirits forthwith 
evaporating to paradise with the ascending waters, but into 
weeping and wailing torments, gnashing their teeth in unutter- 
able woe, while God can live to inflict or keep alive the vic- 
tim to suffer his vengeance. Which mother has most need 
of the mission cause 1 Why may not the Hindoos have their 
their " Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions" as well 
as we ? Not, surely, because we do not need a better faith 
than this of ours. 

On the subject of the creation, and the arguments deduced 
from the science of geology against the authority of the Bible, 
I scarcely feel prepared to speak at all — certainly not at this 
moment. Had I expected this part of our work to-day, or 
this afternoon especially, I would have been prepared with a 
few suggestions. I am sorry for the inability which must 
make me so inadequate to this important branch of our sub- 
ject. Others will doubtless do it yet better justice. AU my 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 149 

early life was lingered on the soil or the rocks that covered it ; 
for our farm was a perfect " Arabia Petrea." And could you 
visit it, you would see at a glance that whoever had to keep 
soul and body together by delving there, would have other 
work than studying geology, or any thing else. 

It was well said by my excellent friend Davis, that " the 
man who knows the most will believe the least." That say- 
ing is worthy a place in any Scripture, ancient or modern. 
The Church, however, has peculiar reasons for all her doubts. 
Her doubts are bold, blind denials. I have heard her scout 
geology in all her high places. She seemed to think science 
would even bow to superstition, as it so often has in the ages 
past. But she sees her sad mistake. Now she is going about 
to reconcile the gospel of geology with her gospel of Genesis. 
She seems willing to meet at least half way. She will carry 
Genesis up to geology, if that will condescend to meet her 
down half way. But truth and nature never compromise. 
They must stand, whatever falls. Scripture may bow to Sci- 
ence — Science to Scripture, never ! 

An English work has just appeared, which the Church 
hopes will extricate her from all her troubles in this matter, 
and lift her forever above the shafts of scientific investigation. 
It undertakes to harmonize all the conflicting doctrines between 
Genesis and geology. The pulpit seems delighted with its 
new champion. A most eminent orthodox clergyman, in New 
Hampshire, hastens to review it, and to bestow upon it high 
encomium. He is so fully and completely satisfied with the 
statement of the argument, that he says, " It is to be presumed 
that the Bible will not be again assaulted from this quarter, 
since the deeper geology sinks its shafts into the earth, the 
more numerous are the pre- Adamite witnesses for the Divine 
Record whom, it awakens from their long sleep, and brings 
forward to give their unbribed testimony." 

The book is by a Dennis Crofton, an English gentleman, 
and the American edition is accompanied by a highly com- 



150 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

mendatory introduction, from the pen of Professor Hitchcock, 
of Amherst College. 

Mr. President, you and I remember when geology was 
scouted as the highway to infidelity. Now " the deeper its 
shafts sink, the stronger it makes the Divine Record." But 
where is the six thousand years' theory and the Genesis argu- 
ment for the Sabbath "? Professor Hitchcock has long known 
that the earth was millions of ages old, instead of a few thou- 
sand years. But he kept it to himself, and let the Church 
grope on in blindness. The late work of Mr. Crofton goes 
deeper yet, and Garrison is no longer an infidel, only for 
doubting that God kept thcvfirst Sabbath alone as a day of 
repose. Thus were we taught, till geology exposed the delu- 
sion. We thought God, fatigued and worn out with the labor, 
the wear and tear of creating the world, with its machinery 
and inhabitants, retired for the seventh day and devoted it to 
refreshment and rest. But we have found out our mistake, 
and have learned that a day at creation was more than a Sun- 
day or a Monday. 

Mr. Crofton labors to prove that the account of the creation 
in Genesis is mainly correct and correspondent with the facts 
in geology. One of his arguments is this : He goes on to say 
that " the first verse of Genesis describes the original creation 
of the whole universe ; and that the history is then dropped 
altogether, until a period immediately antecedent to the crea- 
tion of the human race." The materials of the world were 
created, he claims, as stated in the first verse. Here, now, 
comes the harmony betwixt Genesis and geology. Listen to 
it : " But an almost boundless interval of duration elapsed be- 
tween the period embraced in the Jirst and third verses of the 
chapter.'''' (Cries of hear, hear.) 

Now there is reconciliation for you betwixt Genesis and 
geology. The author then goes on to speak of " the formless 
and void state of the earthy during which the astounding changes 
took place indicated by the d'lfferent fossiliferous strata, ivken 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 151 

during these long ages the earth was inhabited by successive 
tribes of animal and vegetable creations^ and widely differing 
from the types of those now existing." This is precisely in 
keeping with the argument of Professor Agassiz — an argu- 
ment which, when he first made it, caused him to be branded 
as an infidel, and holds him so still. I wish here to say to my 
friend Turner, that had he read the work of Mr. Crofton, he 
would not have spoken with half the confidence he did on the 
discovery of geology. " The more a man knows, the less he 
believes;" and the more modest he will be, too,' in offering his 
opinions. 

I will detain the audience with but another single allusion 
to the book of Mr. Crofton. The reviewer says that this book 
is " biblical ;" yet how long is it since William Lloyd Garri- 
son was branded as an infidel over the world, because he dared 
to assert that the position taken by the elder Dr. Beecher, 
that " the Sabbath was the central sun of the moral universe," 
was not supported by Genesis 1 

He says, " There may have been a long interval in duration 
between the creation of ' the heaven and the earth' mentioned 
in the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis, and the con- 
tinuation of the earth's history in the second verse ; or, in 
other words, credibly with the historic style of writing in the 
Scriptures, a long interval of time may be 2^cLSsed over in silence 
between two immediately connected verses, without any intima- 
tion that such a wide interval existed. 

" Thus in Exodus, second chapter, an interval of seven or 
eight years is passed over without notice between the first 
and second verses ; in Deuteronomy, tenth chapter, the period 
of thirty years, between the fifth and sixth verses, is not 
mentioned ; in Ezra, fifty-eight years are not noticed between 
chapters six and seven ; and in the one hundred and fourth 
Psalm, the long period of sixteen hundred years, between the 
fifth and sixth verses, is passed over in silence. A period, 
therefore, oi vast duration may have elapsed between the 



152 PEOCEEDINaS OF THE 

events mentioned in the first and second verses of Genesis, 
though no notice is taken of it." 

Such, then, is the boasted agreement between geology and 
Genesis, and this the Church fancies is to stop the mouths of 
all inquirers into moral and natural science and truth. And 
this, too, she claims as a triumph. It must be at best like 
that of an ancient conqueror, who said, " True, it was a vic- 
tory, but another such would be ruin." Which has yielded. 
Science or the Bible 1 The one had its theory and chronology 
— reaching back six thousand years. The other contradicted 
both, and claimed theories of its own establishing, and a 
chronology that might challenge the arithmetic of angels to 
compute its duration. Which theory and chronology are 
now received? Mr. Chairman, the Church has yielded, 
yielded most reluctantly to be sure — but, as always before, 
science has triumphed, as it ever must, over all else besides. 

The Church always resists the new-born truths. As in the 
days of Jesus, she fancies herself all righteous, and despises 
others, and all wise, too, as righteous. How many did she kill 
and destroy a century or two since for supposed witchcraft ? 
If a woman hazarded a life of single bliss, she was easily sus- 
pected. If she grew homely as she grew old (no very strange 
phenomena), suspicions ripened into probabilities. If she 
were poor, and kept that fearful cat, the supposed saddle-horse 
of all witches, probabilities became certainties — she had surely 
married herself to the devil; and so from the gibbet they 
swung her away to the bed and board of her infernal bride- 
groom, all in obedience, as they said, to Scripture command. 

Lonof enough after the courts refused to convict, the Church 
and pulpit clamorously demanded their helpless, harmless 
victims. I have in my house a sermon delivered two hundred 
years ago, by a most eminent clergyman of England, from the 
text, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Its delivery 
must have occupied more than three hours ; but it is a defense 
of the witch-hanging habit of those days, more able than any 



HAKTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 153 

I ever saw besides. There are skill, logic, power about' it, 
more than in a basket full of the sermons of our times. But 
powerful as the argument was then considered, the minister 
would go to the mad-house now who should admit it as out- 
weighing the smallest dust of the balance. Science or com- 
mon sense was in time victorious over the delusions of arti- 
ficial religion. 

It is now six years since my attention was called to the 
subject before this Convention; and this constant dread of the 
existing established church to receive any new doctrine in- 
duced me to believe that neither slavery, war, nor intemper- 
ance could be abolished until the faith of mankind was shaken 
in the divine authority of written, re- written, transcribed, re- 
transcribed, translated, and re-translated Scriptures. A people 
blindly bowing before such divinities never will, never can, ad- 
vance. Progress is too high a word for such. 

But suffer me another instance of the triumph which hu- 
manity and reason have achieved over the blind presumptions 
and assumptions of the Church. 

Once the Church believed (or said she did) in the damna- 
tion of infants, born or unborn, if non-elect. Some of you 
have doubtless heard the doctrine. Why, Mr. Chairman, the 
shores of the lake of fire and brimstone were supposed to be 
scattered with skulls of infants, as the sea-side with shells. 
(Laughter.) Our friend Mr. Storrs alluded to this subject 
last evening. The ministry brought this doctrine to market 
along with their other sectarian wares, while it would sell 
and command ready pay. In time humanity was sick and 
ashamed of a monstrosity so impious, so awful. Now the 
doctrine is nowhere — and, what is more, the ministry are de- 
claring, so help them Heaven, it never was preached in this 
country, nor believed. Very recently a long newspaper con- 
troversy was carried on in Concord and Boston between two 
leading denominations, the Orthodox and the Free-will Bap- 
tists, the latter charging, the former denying. And so stern 



154 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

was the denial, that at one time it seemed as if it would win 
the day. An authority was found, however, which settled the 
point forever. 

A book turned up, written by a distinguished doctor of 
divinity, and of medicine also, entitled " The Day of Doom ; 
or, a Poetical Description of the Great and Last Judgment." 
When the author (Rev. Dr. Wigglesworth) died, the cele- 
brated Dr. Cotton Mather was selected to preach the funeral 
sermon. In the discourse are many highly complimentary 
allusions to the pastoral labors and the written books and 
productions of the departed minister. Among the rest, the 
" Day of Doom" is thus characterized : " The ' Day of Doom' 
has been often reprinted in both Englands ; and may, perhaps, 
find our children, till the Day itself shall arrive." 

The book is indeed wonderful, if not so immortal as was 
predicted. It is in a sort of doggerel poetry, common in 
those times. It calls up the different classes of the race of 
man to the bar for trial, hears their defense, and then assigns 
them their place in weal or woe. The infants are reserved to 
the last. I will recite you, Mr. Chairman, some specimens of 
the scene : 

" Then to the bar all they drew near 

Who died in infancy — 
And never had, or good or bad, 

Effected personally — 
But from the womb unto the tomb 

Straightway were carried — 
Or at the least, ere they transgrest 

Who thus began to plead." 

Then follows a long and, as I think, able defense of their case 
by the infants themselves. Had I been judge or jury, they 
never should have been condemned, if the heavens fell. They 
are not able to see why, since Adam, the cause of their fall, is 
pardoned for his actual sin, they are to be condemned, cast 
off, and boiled in the lake of fire forever — who knew nothing 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 165 

and could do nothing betwixt the womb and the tomb, and 
whose only cradle was a coffin. 

But the poem proceeds with the trial : 

" Then answered the Judge most dread : 

' God doth such things forbid, 
That men should die eternally 

For what they never did. 
But what you call old Adam's fall, 

And only his trespass. 
You call amiss to call it his, 

Both his and yours it was. 
You sinners are ; and such a share 

As sinners may expect. 
Such yor. shall have ; for I do save 

None but my own elect. 
Yet to compare your sin with theirs 

Who lived a longer time, 
I do confess yours is much less, 

Though every sin's a crime 
A crime it is — therefore in bliss 

ou may not hope to dwell ; 
But unto you I shall allow 

The easiest rooms in hell ! ! '" 

(Laughter and great sensation.) 
But, Mr. Chairman, there is small comfort in even this as- 
signment of rooms. For a little farther on, we are assured 
that in the most favored places the climate is decidedly too 
tropical for health, comfort, or convenience : 

" But who can tell the plagues of hell 

And torments exquisite ? 
Who can relate their dismal state 

And terrors infinite ? 
Who fare the best, and feel the least. 

Yet feel that punishment. 
Whereby to naught they should be brought 

If God did not prevent. 
The least degree of misery 

There felt, is incomparable ; 



156 FKOCEEDINGS OF THE 

The lightest pain they there sustain 

Is more than intolerable. 
But God's great power, from hour to hour, 

Upholds them in the fire, 
That they shall not consume a jot, 

Nor by its force expire." 

(Immense sensation.) 

So did the pulpit once teach — so once did the people learn. 
So would it have been to-day with us, had the prayers and 
anathemas of the Church against progress and reform prevailed 
with God. 

But the Church bows always her sinews of steel, when she 
can resist no longer. She asks leave to be — to exist — of the 
public opinion. She preaches any gospel which that public 
dictates. The hanging of women for witchcraft, the doctrines 
of election and reprobation, the Genesis argument for the 
Sabbath, the damnation of infants, and the worse than heathen 
fable of a lake somewhere whose waters are molten brim 
stone, blue blazing forever and ever, all these have had their 
day. Theological volcanoes they were in their time ; but they 
are now quenched, let us hope, eternally. 

We are now met to settle, or at least to try, another great 
doctrine. I could wish this might be a finality to the Babel 
jargon of sectarian faiths — a final tribunal to the spite and 
spleen of dogmatic theology. We are easily striking to-day 
upon the underpinning stones of the great fabric of religious 
superstition, which has deluged the earth in the blood of 
millions of human victims — which marshaled the crusades, 
built and sanctified the Spanish Inquisition, founded the French 
Bastile, and kindled a thousand hells in almost all the lands, 
terrible as described in the apocalyptic vision, or the fearful 
fancies of " Paradise Lost." 

And even this last stronghold begins to be shaken. Geol- 
ogy is doing that for humanity which Genesis has failed to 
do. Rather, it is undoing the work which Genesis has so long 
done in the hands of a blind or bigoted priesthood. Let us 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 157 

rejoice, Mr. Chairman, that we have at length found a true 
revelation — God's own word literally written on " tables of 
stone." And the yet unknown Scripture, the voice of the 
ages, is fast being unrolled and read. It shines in the stars. 
It is hieroglyphed in the flowers. It speaks in the tempest. 
The shuddering spheres proclaim it. Like its Author, it is 
everywhere present. Anointed visions see it. All that have 
ears to hear shall hear it. It is gilded with the glory of its 
Great Author. And it shall yet bring, not damnation to in 
fancy, or to any age, but joy and gladness to all the now sor- 
rowing children of a loving Father. 



SECOND DAY-EVENING SESSION. 

Friday, June Zd. 

Rev. George Stores arose and said : The Bible is on trial, 
charged with the blackest crimes. We have called for the 
rule by which the Bible is to be tried, and we are told that 
that rule is natural religion, or, in other words, the religion of 
nature. I do not know that there has been any receding. 
My friend Wright said very distinctly, that the rule by which 
the Bible was to be tried was the religion of nature. If they 
recede from that position, I have no objection certainly ; but 
it is manifest that there must be some rule. Now to say 
that the rule is in the Bible itself, is to say that the criminal 
is to be judged by himself. (Cries of hear, hear.) It is taken 
for granted that he is a criminal. Now what law has he vio- 
lated % Has he violated the religion of nature 1 I wish it to 
be distinctly understood with regard to myself, as I have be- 
fore said, I do not stand here to contend that every thing writ- 
ten in that Bible is inspired of God. That is not my position. 



158 PEOCEEDINaS OP THE 

I do not stand here to say that every sentiment that is utter 
ed in that Bible is approved of by the God of the Bible. 1 
do not stand here to affirm, when a certain character said, 
" Thou shalt not surely die," that that was inspired by God. 
No, it was a libel upon God. I said last evening, that I con- 
ceived that the true question should be, not is the Bible a 
revelation from God, but is the Bible a true history of reve- 
lations given to men in times past, and does it contain a true 
record of transactions connected with these revelations ? As 
I have already said, the truth of that position depends upor 
the credibility of the witnesses ; but 1 am not going to argue 
that point again to-night. What does the resolution charge 
upon the Bible? Who has ever said that the Bible, "as a 
whole J"* emanated from God % I have just quoted one text that 
is recorded there that did not emanate from God, but from 
his enemy. The objection, however, that is urged against the 
Bible — the crime that is charged upon the Bible, is not a new 
one. It is substantially the same that has been urged by 
many eminent men prior to this day. We here give you a 
quotation from Lord Bolingbroke. He says : " The God of 
Moses is partial, unjust, cruel (hear, hear) ; delights in blood, 
commands assassination, massacres, and even exterminations 
of people, etc. (Hear, hear.) The God of Paul elects some 
of his creatures to salvation, and predestinates others to dam- 
nation, even in their mothers' wombs. If there was not a Be- 
ing infinitely more perfect than these, there would be no God 
at all, nor any true religion in the world. But there is most 
assuredly such a Being, and he who proposes any system of 
religion wherein this all-perfect Being is not to be found, may 
say he is not an Atheist, but can not say with truth that he 
is a Theist." — Works, vol. v., p. 600. Here you perceive 
substantially the same argument. It is not a new one. Ho^ 
is the Bible tried by natural religion — the religion of nature f 
By contrasting it with the 'character of the God of nature? | 
If I have misstated the question, I have not intended to. I • 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 159 

have not come here with any feeling of quarreling in my 
heart. (Hear, hear.) I am almost prepared to say from my 
very heart, that I respect the Deists because they have reject- 
ed the Bible ; they having been taught that the Bible teaches 
certain doctrines, which I am satisfied are not to be found in 
it, but originated in the perverse understanding of men. 
Now, sir, we are going to test the God of the Bible by the 
God of nature, and see how the God of the Bible stands by 
this law in respect to the God of nature. Now shut up the 
Bible and look at the God of nature. The God of nature is 
cruel. " What, " the God of nature !" Yes, sir, outrageously 
cruel, barbarously cruel. " How do you prove that charge 1" 
Go yonder, sir ; see where that city stood. All were in the 
enjoyment of blessings and sympathy of friendships, rejoicing 
in each other's love, the love of society, and the God of na- 
ture marched through by his earthquake, shook the founda- 
tion of the city, and buried them in ruin ! Is the God of the 
Bible worse than that ? What has he done worse than that ? 
(Applause.) Here is a populous country that spreads itself 
along the pleasant river, and the fields are whitening for the 
harvest. The inhabitants dwelling along the borders of that 
river are flourishing and in prosperity. Their families are 
happy ; but the God of nature pours down the waters, and 
the river rises and swells, and sweeps away their dwellings, 
and destroys the inhabitants. Ah ! did the God of the Bible 
do any thing worse than that"? Come, God of nature, stand 
up and defend yourself. We charge you with being a cruel 
God. (Applause.) We see men spread abroad over the 
land, pursuing the business of life, and not interfering with 
the God of nature ; but the God of nature travels along 
through the country with the cholera, and calls off thousands 
upon thousands. Does he not sanction " wholesale murder"?" 
We are trying the Bible by the God of nature, and I will ask 
you, as a jury sitting on the trial, if, so far, the God of nature 
is not likely to be quite as bad as the God of the Bible? 



160 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

But, sir, we don't stop here — we go further. You complain, 
perhaps, that the God of the Bible authorized Moses to exter 
minate whole nations — wholesale murder you may call it, if 
you please. Plow has the God of nature acted in this respect 1 
1 beg leave again to refer to Bolingbroke. It is in his views 
on the subject of evil, in his Works, vol. v., pp. 403, 404. 
He says : " True it is that nmen are sometimes involved in 
general calamities, which they can neither foresee nor prevent, I 
such as inundations, earthquakes, pestilences, and the entire i 
devastations of kingdoms or provinces hy savage and barbarous 
people, like the Huns of old, or the Spaniards, in later ages. 
But these calamities are rare. They may be considered as 
chastisements, for chastisements are reasonable wheti there are' 
any to be amended by partaking of them, or by being at least ; 
spectators of them. They may be considered as mere effects, I 
natural, though contingent of matter and motion in a material - 
system, put in motion under certain general laws. If they :♦* 
are seen in the first light (^. e., of chastisements), they should I 
teach mankind to adore and to fear that Providence tvhich gov- 
erns the woi'ld by particular as well as by general dispensations. 
If they are seen in the second {i. e., as mere effects, etc.), they 
should suggest some other reflections which are not without 
their utility neither." On page 438, Bolingbroke says : " Got- 
ta, who exercises greater injustice toward God than any of 
the tyrants he quotes did toward men, is much scandalized 
that those two eyes of the Mediterranean coast, Corixth and 
Carthage, were put out, etc. But how did he know that 
Mummius and Scipio (the Roman generals by whom these 
cities were destroyed) were not instruments of the justice of 
Providence, as well as of Roman policy and passion ? The 
worst men, and the Romans were none of the best, are em- 
ployed to punish the worst. None so fitted to the task. They 
are the instruments, and in their turn the examples of divine 
justice. The wealth, the splendor, the magnificence of Corinth 
were great, but Corinth was a sink of iniquity. Carthage was 



i 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 161 

p, great and powerful state, but the Carthaginians were a faith- 
less, factious, and cruel people. Might not these be the remote 
and true causes (of the judgment of God upon them), what- 
ever the immediate and apparent were of their destruction 1" 

Now, sir, here is one who is talking of the God of nature. 
He admits it right, and undertakes to justify the God of na- 
ture in suffering those two eyes of the Mediterranean Sea to 
be put out. For what reason'? "Why," says he, "they 
were abominably corrupt." Therefore the God of nature 
was justified in causing them to be destroyed, and destroyed, 
too, by the wickedest of men. Now I ask this intelligent con- 
gregation, whether the cases are not very parallel with the God 
of the Bible ; and whether the God of the Bible is to be con- 
demned by the God of nature. What was the reason which 
the God of the Bible himself assigns, why Abraham was not 
yet to possess the land of Canaan 1 Why "? His posterity were 
to be kept out of that land for centuries to come. Turn to the 
Bible itself and hear what it says, Genesis xv. 13-16. After 
speaking to Abraham of the bondage of his children in Egypt, 
He says, "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither 
again." Now mark, ''''For the iniquity of the Amorites is not 
yetfulV W^hat is that, sir % Why, the God of the Bible did 
not allow Abraham to possess that land, or injure its inhabit- 
ants, for the reason that their iniquity was not yet full ; but 
when it was full, as Lord Bolingbroke says, the iniquity of 
Carthage and Corinth was full ; then, sir, the God of the Bible 
did the same thing that the God of nature did. 

Now, sir, how are you going to condemn the God of the 
Bible by the God of nature? Whoever will take the history 
of the world will find that the God of nature has suffered and 
countenanced the same crimes which it is affirmed the God of 
the Bible has ; and without spending time to go into the de 
tails, we will say that the God of nature has countenanced, 
sanctioned, and sustained exterminating war, Lord Boling 
broke himself being witness on the subject ; so the God of 



162 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

nature is a " wholesale murderer." Sir, if the God of th^ 
Bible was, so is the God of nature ; and once judged by that 
law, the Bible stands at least on an equality with the God 
of nature, or with natural religion, if you like the expression 
better. 

But, sir, why is it that there must be a disposition or in- 
clination on the part of some on this question to foist upon 
the God of the Bible certain doctrines which the Bible never 
taught, and never does teach ? I am of opinion, as at the out- 
set, that the question first of all to be settled is, not whether 
the Bible is a revelation of God, but whether it is a faithful 
history of revelations made at different times to different per- 
sons under different circumstances, and a faithful history of 
transactions connected with those revelations 1 Now, sir, we 
take a transaction which was referred to last evening, and yes- 
terday. My friend Pillsbury asked me last night why I would 
not take up the case of the slave whipped to death "? Now, 
sir, we are going to turn to that text. Did my friend Barker 
intend to insinuate to this congregation that the God of the 
Bible sanctioned the whipping of a slave to death, and because 
he was the money of the master, the master was not to be 
punished for it ? 

Mr. Barker — I said that the Bible lays down the principle, 
that if a man whip his man-servant or his maid-servant, so 
that the servant dies, if the servant does not die the same day, 
then the master shall not be punished; and the reason as- 
signed by the passage is, " because he is his money." 

Mr. Storrs — Now, sir, we will read the passage, mark you 
— the question was, whether the God of the Bible sanctions 
the murder of a slave? " And if a man smite his servant or 
his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely 
be punished;" and what is the punishment? "He is his 
money, and must not be hurt." Just let the Scriptures ex- 
plain themselves and get their own testimony. The same 
chapter, twelfth verse, says, " He that smiteth a man so that 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 163 

he die, shall be surely put to death." That is the plain state- 
ment. " But, perhaps," says one, " thait does not exactly pre- 
vent his smiting a slave so that he dies." 

Mr. Barker — Does Mr. Storrs mean to say that he has 
read the whole passage referring to the smiting to death a ser- 
vant ? 

Mr. Storrs — No, not now ; I anj coming to it by and by. 
Turn to Deuteronomy, 19th chapter. Here are provisions 
made, that in case a man slew his neighbor, not intending his 
death, he might, by fleeing to a city of refuge, be preserved 
from death, if it was a manifest fact that he did not intend to 
kill him ; but the person could not be saved from punishment 
where there was an intention of killing. Mark the law : " But 
if any man hate his neighbor, and rise up against and smite 
him that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities, then the 
elders of the city shall send and bring him thence, and deliver 
him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. 
Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the 
guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with 
thee." 

Now, sir, I ask, if the law does not clearly specify that in 
case a person intends to kill another, there should be no such 
thing as deliverance 1 that he should die. That was the penalty. 
We come back again to the 21st chapter of Exodus. You 
have seen that this man who is supposed to have a pecuniary 
interest in this man-servant or maid-servant is found chastis- 
ing or whipping them for some supposed imaginary or real 
offense. Why, says the law, "If he die under his hand he 
shall be surely punished ;" and the punishment is, " he shall 
surely die for it." But says the following verse, " and not- 
withstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be pun- 
ished, for he is his money." (Hear, hear.) Did you ever 
hear of manslaughter 1 What is the punishment spoken of in 
the text ? Death. Well, now, this person who has thus in- 
flicted upon a man-servant or a maid-servant chastisement, 



164: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

or punishment, or whipping, so that after a day or two he 
dies, it is supposed, from the very nature of the case, that he 
did not intend to take the life of his servant; therefore the 
punishment which had been specified beforehand was not to 
be inflicted upon him. I ask if this is not the case in modern 
days with our laws 1 Does not the law call it manslaughter, 
where a man lingers along a day or two after he is injured, 
and where it is proved that the one injuring him did not in- 
tend to take his life. The very fact that the master has an 
interest in the servant is prima facie evidence that he did not 
intend to take his life ; and therefore is an evidence that he 
did not intend to commit murder. The impression has been 
made that the Bible sanctions such a thing as American 
slavery ; but we have in the chapter before us now — " and if a 
man smite the eye of his servant or the eye of his maid that 
it perish, he shall let him go out free for his eye's sake." 

He was punished for smiting out his eye by the loss of all 
pecuniary interest, whatever it was. " And if he smite his 
man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let 
him go free for his tooth's sake" — for loss of a tooth. Pretty 
good punishment, was it not ? that he should be obliged to 
lose the property he had in this servant. Therefore you see 
that the law guards against injury in inflicting punishment 
upon these servants. I say, then, sir, that the reason why he 
should not be punished with death is a good reason ; and the 
principle that is admitted in the administration of common 
law under our own government; that is, the pdnciple that cir- 
cumstances may go to show that the man did not intend to kill. 
Here, then, sir, we conceive that the God of the Bible is not so 
bad as they have charged him to be in this particular. 

Now, sir, there is another point upon which I wish to enter, 
though I have not time, of course, to go into it at length ; and 
I simply suggest an idea without dwelling upon the point I 
intend to take up at another time, when I speak again. It 
will be a point which has a connection with the last speech we 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 165 

heard this afternoon. I have almost wondered that those 
who brmg all the evidence against the Bible they can possibly 
bring, have not complained that the God of the Bible should 
allow his people to sell meat that died of itself to strangers. 
Now, say they, " See what the God of the Bible does !" What 
does he do 1 If you mean any thing, you mean to say that 
" he lets them cheat the stranger." The God of the Bible 
makes a law, and says, " I design you to be a holy people. 
You shall not eat that which dieth of itself, but you may sell 
it to the stranger. He may eat it;" that is, if he will. 
What a terrible, unholy God he must be ! Now, sir, just 
look here. We live in Connecticut. The Legislature assem- 
bles here in Hartford, and they pass a law prohibiting the 
people of Connecticut from eating that which dies of itself. 
What would be the use of such a law as that ? Nobody in all 
Connecticut ever thinks of eating meat that dies of itself; but, 
now, suppose in opposition to this, that the whole community 
should prefer their meat half tainted before they began to eat 
it, because it would he more tender/ (Laughter.) Suppose 
that they should go and bury meat, as the dog does, till putre- 
faction commences, and then eat it ; then the Legislature 
meet and adopt a law prohibiting such things. Does not that 
law purport that the people of the State of Connecticut have 
been accustomed to do such things heretofore'? The very 
fact of a prohibitory law being enacted, shows that men did, 
in the time of Moses, eat such meat as God prohibits the 
people of Israel from eating ; and that the nations around 
them would do it still : to them therefore they might sell it. 
There may be persons round about Connecticut who are still 
in the practice of eating that which dies of itself. Now, if 
these inhabitants prefer to have such meat, let them have it. 
If you let your neighbor have it, when he was not accustomed 
I to eat such, and deceived him in the matter, I admit you 
j/| would do wrong. I trust that every one will make this dis- 
y tinction. 



166 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mr. William Lloyd Garrison then made the following 
speech : 

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I offered a series of resolutions, 
and intimated that perhaps, at some subsequent stage of our 
proceedings, I would endeavor to say a few words in their 
defense. 

I do not now intend to follow the friend who has just sat 
down (Mr. Storrs). 1 have listened in my time to a great 
many arguments which I have deemed exceedingly fallacious 
and extraordinary ; but I must say, in all frankness, that I 
have never heard arguments, to my own mind, more fallacious 
and extraordinary than those which our friend has served up 
to us this evening. (Applause and hissing.) However, on 
this occasion I wave any examination of what he has said, 
because I wish to draw the attention of this great assemblage 
to what I conceive to be the real point at issue. Our friend 
(Mr. Storrs) has said that the plenary inspiration of the Bible 
is not the question before us, nor does he seem to regard it as 
of any importance. 

Eev. Mr. Storrs — I beg to correct the statement of the 
speaker. I do not think that the question is not as to the in- 
spiration of the Scriptures ; but I think that the credibility of 
the witnesses should be considered as establishing, or not, the 
fact of inspiration, and the facts connected with that inspiration. 

Mr. Garrison — Our friend asked, who believes that every i; 
thing in the Bible was given by inspiration ? Who believes 
that all the books of the Old and New Testament were dic- 
tated by God, and written under the direct superintendence 
of his Spirit? I answer, all evangelical Christendom professes 
to believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible. Have you 
not been taught to believe it, and that to doubt it, and espe- 
cially to deny it, is nothing better than rank infidelity ? Have 
not books and sermons been publishedby theological profess- 
ors and eminent divines to prove that every portion of the 



HAETFOIdD BIBLE CONVEKTION. 167 

Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the divine impress, 
and is to be implicitly received as the truth 1 Is not that vol- 
ume styled " the sacred Scriptures'' — " the holy Bible" — with- 
out exception or discrimination, from beginning to end 1 And 
is it not dogmatically presented to us as the only rule of faith 
and practice 1 Now, regarding this as the real question at 
issue, I propose to meet it at this time, and therefore will read 
the resolutions which I offered this afternoon, with express 
reference to it. [For resolutions, see pp. 142, 143.] 

[Having read his resolutions, which were listened to with 
great attention, and greeted with cheers and occasional hisses, 
Mr. G. proceeded to remark :] 

Mr. Chairman, the object which has brought us together is, 
undeniably, a very important one. The question before us 
should be discussed in sincerity of spirit, with the utmost can- 
dor, and with that gravity which belongs to it. It is not that 
my hands are not full — it is not that my mind is not pre-occu- 
pied with other matters of great importance to the cause of 
liberty and humanity, that 1 am with you on this occasion, 
but it is mainly because your Convention, being called for a 
good and lawful object, is nevertheless an unpopular meeting. 
(Cries of hear, hear.) God forbid that I should be ascertain- 
ing for myself where the popular side is to be found, that I 
may stand upon it, and therefore be safe as to my reputation ! 
A popular truth does not need my aid, and I shall not proffer 
any in that direction. A hunted, proscribed, outlawed truth 
commends itself to my warmest support, and both by choice 
and by destiny I feel that I am allied to it, now and for ever. 
(Cheers.) 

Sir, I know well the cost of an appearance in a Convention 
of this kind. I anticipate all that will be said, maliciously 
and opprobriously, on both sides the Atlantic, in regard to 
the resolutions which I have read in your hearing, and to my 
^articipancy in your proceedings. Already I hear the outcry 
siof "Infidel ! infidel! infidel!" on the part of those occupants 



168 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

of the pulpit, who, while they are strong in their "coward's 
castle," never dare to make their appearance on a free plat- 
form before the people. I know, moreover, it wall be said 
that this is another evidence of the infidel character of the 
anti-slavery movement. I know that the American Anti- 
SJavery Society will, by the bigoted and pharisaical, by the 
designing and wicked, be held responsible for the sentiments 
I may utter on this occasion. Shall I, therefore, be dumb? . 
Will it indeed injure the cause of the slave, so dear to my 
heart, for me to express my thoughts conscientiously about 
the Bible ? I do not believe it. Have I any right to speak 
on any other subject than American slavery 1 or am I morally 
bound to give it my undivided attention 1 Why, sir, no free- 
dom of speech or inquiry is conceded to me in this land. Am 
I not vehemently told, both at the North and at the South, 
that I have no right to meddle with the question of slavery ? 
And my right to speak on any other subject, in opposition to 
public opinion, is equally denied to me ; not, it is true, by the 
strong arm of government, but by the cowardly and tyranni- 
cal in spirit. Now I stand here, not as an abolitionist, not to 
represent the anti-slavery cause, but simply as a man, utter- 
ing my own thoughts, on my own responsibility ; and, there- 
fore, whoever shall avail himself of my presence here to make 
me odious as the advocate of the slave, or to subjeqt any anti- 
slavery body to reproach on that account, will reveal himself 
in his true character — that of a bigot, a hypocrite, or a falsifier. 

Sir, let me illustrate our position as a Convention in regard 
to the authenticity and infallibility of the Scriptures. 

If a meeting were to be called at St. Petersburg, in Russia, 
to inquire into the " divine right" of Nicholas to rule auto- 
cratically over that empire, there would be an intense excite- 
ment in that city, and the daring individuals assembling to 
take part in the proceedings would be hurried oflE" to prison, j 
and perhaps capitally punished, for their " treasonable" con- 
duct. You and I know the reason why. 



ARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 169 

If a meeting were to be called at Rome, in Italy, to inquire 
into the infallibility of the Romish Church, it would excite 
popular indignation, and the individuals attending it would be 
in imminent danger of their lives from the power of the Pope 
on one hand, and the blind fury of the populace on the other. 
You and I know the reason why. 

If in Mohammedan countries a meeting should be called 
to inquire into the sacredness of the Koran, a general excite- 
ment would follow, doubtless, and the daring man venturing 
to raise that issue would be hunted down as an " infidel," unfit 
to live. You and I know the reason why. 

So, let a meeting be called in Charleston, South Carolina, 
to inquire into the rightfulness of the slave system, and Lynch 
law would be instantly applied to the man or men who should 
venture to come together to make any such inquiry. Such a 
meeting would not be tolerated for a moment. You and I 
know the reason why. 

Sir, the analogy is perfect in my opinion. The holding of 
this Convention in evangelical Connecticut creates general un- 
easiness, alarm, and indignation, and subjects its members to 
scorn and contumely, if not to bodily peril i In this case, too, 
you and I know the reason why. Yet, sir, ours is a free 
meeting — free for all ; as an anti-slavery meeting in Charles- 
ton would be free ; as a meeting at Rome, to inquire into the 
infallibility of the Romish Church, would be free ; as a meet- 
ing at St. Petersburg, to canvass the right of Nicholas to ex- 
ercise absolute power, would be free — that is, if such could 
be held. 

We are told, on the right hand and on the left, that the fact 
of the plenary inspiration of the Bible is as clear as the noon- 
day sun. It is so well settled, that it is absurd to think of 
disturbing it. There is all the evidence that the human mind 
can desire to sustain the declaration that God did give this 
book to us to be the sole rule of faith and practice. Well, 
if it be so, then they who question the divinity of the Bible 

8 



170 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE 

are the men to dread an open encounter. In that very book 
we are assured that " the righteous are as bold as a lion, but 
the wicked flee when no man pursueth." (Applause.) 

Now, let a meeting be called by pro-slavery men in any 
anti-slavery town (if you can find such an anomaly in the 
United States), and let it ^e announced that the platform will 
be free to all, and that the humanity of the anti-slavery move- 
ment will be the subject of investigation. I do not think that 
there would be any angry excitement on the part of the abo- 
litionists. I do not believe that they would keep away from 
the meeting. I am sure they would say, " That is just what 
we want ! Our cause will gain new adherents by this investi- 
gation. We will not fail to be present." Nor do I think that 
the quiet of the most thoroughly temperance town in America 
would be greatly disturbed should a body of rumsellers and 
moderate drinkers call a meeting in it, to consider whether 
the doctrine of total abstinence is sound, and invite all the 
teetotalers to come and participate in the discussion. I think 
the friends of temperance would say, " It will be an excellent 
opportunity afforded us to do something more for our glorious 
cause. We shall be able to confront the very men who have 
hitherto stood aloof from us, and who need to be reformed. 
We will gladly accept the invitation." 

But, sir, the opponents of abolitionism call no sucn meeting, 
and make no such overtures. The fact is exactly the reverse 
of this. They are consciously in the wrong. Rumsellers and 
moderate drinkers never invite teetotalers to stand upon the 
same platform with themselves. They deprecate all agitation, 
and know full well they have every thing to lose by an open 
encounter. 

Now for the application in the present case. It is alleged 
that this Convention has been called by " heretics" and " inti- 
dels." Be it so, for the argument's sake. The platform is, 
nevertheless, free for all, and each side is to be fairly and fully 
heard. It is, therefore, just the occasion that the professed. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 171 

believers in the holy origin and divine authority of the Bible 
should be glad to improve, to the discomfiture of those who 
would strip the book of at least no small portion of its sanc- 
tity. And so they would, instead of shrinking from the dis- 
cussion, and exciting popular indignation, if they really had 
any intelligent and rational belief on the subject. The book 
may be all that they affirm in its behalf, but by their conduct 
they show that they have no solid faith in its divinity ; for, 
if they had, they would rejoice to stand here (as abolitionists 
and teetotalers are glad to stand in the presence of the advo- 
cates of slavery and rum), and give " a reason for the faith 
that is in them." 

Sir, what is the question before us 1 It is not whether the 
Bible, in many parts of it, is not an invaluable book. It is. 
It is not whether it does not contain many glorious truths and 
precious promises. It does. It is not whether it has not 
many righteous commands and excellent precepts, which 
ought to be obeyed. It has. It is not whether it has not been 
of more good than harm to mankind, in spite of all its errors 
and perversions. I believe it has. 

The question is, is the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, 
an inspired book, so that we are bound to receive every thing 
as true in its pages, without submitting it to the test of reason ? 
If it be not wholly inspired, as our friend Mr. Storrs admits 
it is not, then how much of it is inspired 1 

Rev. Mr. Storrs — All that claims to be. 

Mr. Garrison — How much claims to be inspired, and how 
much not inspired — and who shall determine the question ? I 
should like to see the man here, anywhere, to take that book, 
and, beginning at Genesis, proceed through the entire volume, 
and put his finger upon what he considers as given by inspira- 
tion of God, and see how much he will leave of it, and what 
are his ideas of inspiration. 

Now the assertion that every thing in the Bible is inspired 
is the height of absurdity. To say, for example, that it re 



172 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

quired a revelation from heaven to record the fact that Samson 
went to sleep with his head in the lap of Delilah, or that he 
caught three hundred foxes, and tied their tails together, and 
put a firebrand between them, is folly. When it is narrated 
that a viper came out of the fire and fastened itself upon 
Paul's hand, is this inspiration 1 And so of ten thousand in- 
cidents chronicled in the Bible. What a man can see with his 
own eyes, it requires no supernatural aid to record. Hence, 
if only a part of the Bible is inspired, it is not wholly in- 
spired ; if only a part of it is from above, it is not all from 
above ; if only some portion of it is sacred, it is not all sacred ; 
and, therefore, what is generally claimed for it is false, and 
whatever is false is injurious to the world. How is the quan- 
tity of inspiration to be authoritatively settled 'i 

All Christendom professes to receive the Bible as the Word 
of God, and what does it avail 1 What does all Christendom 
say as to the teachings of the bookl Out of this "inspired" 
volume comes Romanism ; for Rome believes in the Bible. 
Out of it comes Mormonism ; for the Mormons believe in the 
Bible. Out of it come Episcopalianism, Swedenborgianism, 
Presbyterianism, Methodism, and all the other sects, whose 
name is legion. All these claim a Divine sanction from the 
Bible ; and yet they are strongly arrayed against each other 
— rejecting each other's interpretation of the book, and each 
aiming to exterminate all the rest. 

Now, certainly, the Bible does not go for Romanism, and 
against it ; for Episcopalianism, and against it ; for Presby- 
terianism, and against it ; for Methodism, and against it ; for 
Universalism, and against it — etc., etc. If it does, then it is 
a book full of glaring contradictions, and, of course, can not 
have had a Divine origin. 

WIio is it, I ask, that believes in the Bible ? WTiat is it to 
believe in the Bible ? A man tells me that he receives it all 
as the inspired Word of God. What does that prove 1 Noth- 
ing. It gives me no knowledge of his mind or heait. He 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 173 

might just as well have remained dumb. I therefore proceed 
to ask him, What does this inspired word teach and require 1 
He begins to tell me ; and I find he is .either a Papist, a Mor- 
mon, a Swedenborgian, a Presbyterian, or a Universalist — 
and so on, ad infinitum ! What, then, have I ascertained % 
What Divine inspiration is % What the Bible actually en- 
joins'? No; but simply what he thinks is inspired, and what 
he interprets the Bible to mean. Now, what he believes on 
this subject is one thing ; what the exact truth is, is quite 
another. The most any man can say, with any degree of 
humility, in regard to the Bible, is, " In my judgment and my 
conscience, it teaches this or that doctrine, which I regard as 
Heaven-derived" — but holding himself liable to be mistaken, 
and ready at all times to be corrected. We must have no 
papal assumption in this discussion. Thank God for the 
great doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judg- 
ment as to the teachings of any book, as to what is the truth, 
— even against all ecclesiastical edicts and theological dogmas 
ever promulgated. " So, then, every one of us must give ac- 
count of himself," not to the Eomish Pope, not to the Pres- 
byterian General Assembly, but " unto God." Therefore it 
is your prerogative and mine to take the Bible and examine 
it for ourselves — accepting whatever of truth, and rejecting 
whatever of error we discover in its pages, though all the 
rest of mankind dissent from our conclusions. This is 
not to be granted to us as an indulgence, but conceded as 
a sacred right, to be exercised without persecution or condem- 
nation. 

Sir, what does the Bible teach ? One says, it teaches eter- 
nal punishment for the wicked ; another says, it teaches no 
such doctrine, but just the reverse — universal and ultimate 
salvation. One says, it teaches that God exists in a trinity j 
another says, it teaches expressly the unity of God. In Eus- 
sia, its religious expounders say it sanctions autocracy as a 
rightful form of government. Nicholas himself believes in 



174 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

the Bible, only it is the Bible so interpreted as to go for 
Nicholas. (Laughter.) In England, the Bible expositors say 
that it sanctions a limited monarchy, and enjoins this as a 
duty — " Honor the king." In our country, they assert that 
the Bible goes for Republicanism ; and that no man should 
be king over us, Paul and Peter to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing. (Applause.) Is this to believe the Bible, or to reject 
it ? Which is the " infidel" party in this confusion of tongues 1 
Again : Does the Bible inculcate the doctrines of total de- 
pravity, and yet deny it 1 Does it go for immersion as the 
oaily true baptism, and then for sprinkling or for pouring ? 
Does it allow taking oaths, and then forbid swearing under all 
circumstances 1 Does it sanctify the first day of the week as 
the Sabbath, or require the observance of the seventh day, 
or hallow all days alike 1 Does it teach the duty of total 
abstinence, and at the same time approve of the moderate 
use of intoxicating drink] Does it assert the equality of 
woman with man, or place her beneath him 1 Does it go for 
a union of Church and State ? Of course it does, on the other 
side of the Atlantic ; but on this side it does no such thing. 
Does it require temple worship, on stated occasions — or does 
it sweep it all away, and approve of that worship only which 
is " in spirit and in truth 1" 

To all these inquiries, the most conflicting answers are made 
by those who profess the greatest veneration for the book. It 
is as plastic as clay in the hands of the potter, and molded 
into any conceivable shape. Is a man a warrior ? He goes 
to the Bible with the war-spirit, and, running over its pages, 
he picks out what he says justifies him in his military profes- 
sion. Is it with the spirit of peace that a man is imbued? 
He examines the book with that intent, and all he finds in 
favor of peace he arrays on his side of the question. Does 
a man believe in enslaving a portion of the human race? 
Then he mterprets the Bible in accordance with his theory, 
and proclaims the system to be divinely instituted. Is he an 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 175 

abolitionist ? Then he does what in him lies to make it the 
ally of freedom. 

So we have these various interpretations, and they are 
without end, whether relating to the existence and attributes 
of God, to the nature and mission of Jesus, to religious rites 
and duties, to matters of faith and practice, to what belongs 
to the past and concerns the future, to time or to eternity. 
Now, which of these is reliable, and who is to assume the 
robes of infallibility 1 Who accepts or who rejects the Bible 1 
Is it Trinitarian or Unitarian, Calvinist or Universalist, Mon- 
archist or Republican, Slaveholder or Abolitionist ? 

Now let us come to something practical. Here is the ques- 
tion of slavery. Shall we go to the Bible to learn our duty 
in regard to it, or to determine its character ? We shall never 
settle it by any such reference. The Bible never yet settled 
any controversy. Every thing must be decided upon its own 
merits. We must judge of the tree by its fruit. Facts are 
more decisive than verbal declarations. Let us look at the 
slave system as it is, in a legal and practical point of view. 
If it works well for our country, and scatters blessings wher- 
ever it goes, then do I not care what any book in the universe 
says : I will go for it. But it is impossible to gather grapes 
from thorns, or figs from thistles. 

Here is the question of capital punishment. How is it to be 
settled 1 By appealing to the Bible 1 Never. You may find 
texts on one side, and texts on the other ; and all the time you 
are wrangling about what the Bible teaches, the necks of men 
will continue to be broken. Now if it can be shown that the 
gallows prevents the shedding of human blood, restrains from 
the commission of crime, and benefits society, it needs no 
other defense. But this can not be done, and the reverse of 
this is true ; therefore the gallows should be cast down, no 
matter what may be said in any book to the contrary. 

So in regard to war. If its fruits are good — if it im- 
proves the manners and morals of those who engage in it 



1T6 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

— if It is promotive of human happiness and freedom, then its 
justification is made out. But if, on the other hand, it mili 
tates against the progress of the human race, and against hu- 
man liberty, then it was never justifiable, and ought never to 
be countenanced. 

Have we an infinite God or a finite one 1 — one who is the 
same from everlasting to everlasting, or one who has no fixed 
laws by which he governs the universe ? Does God, in one 
age of the world, not only authorize, but require his children, 
to perpetrate deeds which, in another age, are inherently cruel 
and morally wrong in his eyes 1 Are the laws of our being 
changeable] Are our relations to him, and to each other, 
evanescent or mutable, or are they not always the same, 
though often misunderstood and disregarded ? 

Now remember, that moral distinctions are never inter- 
changeable and never conflictive. Thus "war" means all 
that belongs to war — "peace" all that pertains to peace. If 
peace be right, and God requires it, war must be wrong, and 
God never authorized it. If God commands me ever to speak 
the truth, he never authorized any man to tell a lie. If God 
commands a certain thing to be done, as in accordance with 
his own will, and because it is right at one time, he never 
commands an opposite thing to be done at another period. He 
never can make wrong right, or right wrong — what is obedi- 
ence to-day, sin to-morrow. Otherwise, we have a changeable, 
fickle, finite God, who rules capriciously in the universe, and 
knows not what a day may bring forth. But the Bible repre- 
sents God in his double character ; therefore it is fallible, and 
not divinely inspired. 

I have no doubt that the writers of the Old Testament, 
whoever they were, believed what they put down when they 
wrote, "And the Lord said unto Moses," "unto Joshua," and 
to many others, " Let this be done," or " See that ye do it 
not." I do not accuse them of designing to palm off on the 
world a falsehood. I presume they wrote according to their 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 177 

highest conceptions of the character of God. Doubtless they 
believed — or, if you prefer, Moses himself believed — that the 
Lord r'equired all that is alleged by them. But this proves 
nothing, excepting that those writers, though honest, were wo- 
fully mistaken as to the mind of God, as many have been 
since their day. 

What is to be gained by getting the assent of the whole 
world to the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Bible? 
You do not thereby attain to unity of faith or practice. I 
have said that all Christendom professes to receive the Bible 
as from God ; yet all Christendom is full of strife in regard 
to what are the teachings of the book. What, then, is the 
conclusion of the whole matter 1 All that we can get from 
any one is, simply, what Ae believes the Bible teaches — nothing 
more. He may, or may not, correctly interpret its meaning ; 
but his interpretation is not necessarily the Bible, nor his 
notion of inspiration, inspiration itself. Each one must decide 
for himself, and all dogmatism, self conceit, and infallibility 
must cease. 

Those who make the loudest professions of faith in the Di- 
vine authenticity of the Bible evince the most uneasiness 
whenever it is proposed to make an independent investigation 
of its claims. For example : this Convention was fairly and 
impartially called, in language wholly unexceptionable, and 
in a kind and magnanimous spirit ; and the clerical advocates 
of plenary inspiration were especially invited to attend. 
Where are they? Will they say that the Convention is be- 
neath their notice ? Is this the reason that they are absent ? 
We have had, it is true, two of the clerical profession to take 
the platform in opposition ; but then, popularly speaking, 
they are both heretics. One is my old friend, George Storrs, 
whom I have not seen for some time — a man who, in the 
darkest period of the anti-slavery struggle, dared to look the 
slave-power in the face, and stood up like a man in defense 
of the down-trodden slave, though branded as a fanatic and 

8* 



178 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

ultraist. He is here, but unfrocked by the popular clergy, and 
regarded as theologically erratic. He can afford to stand here 
better than he could to be an abolitionist, for it will cost him 
nothing. And his friend and associate (Mr. Turner) is in the 
same category, as to his theological views. None of us have 
any reputation to lose ; and so we are all heretics together. 
(Laughter.) But where are the soundly orthodox and pub- 
licly recognized clergymen? Where are the teachers and 
masters in Israel ? " Instinct is a great matter." If the 
educated, popular, " evangelical" clergy of our country felt 
that they could stand on a free platform, and successfully dis- 
cuss this question before the people, they would not be slow 
to come here, carry off all the honors, and put the laurel 
wreath around their brows. (Applause and hisses.) 

One of my resolutions affirms unequivocally, that if pub- 
lic sentiment should demand of the American clergy that they 
cast the Bible into the flames, they would as readily do it to- 
morrow, as to-day they are loud and voluble in their indorse- 
ment of it, in accordance with public sentiment. Is this an 
unjust charge? Do not the facts of the case warrant it? 
Where, as a body, do they stand ? Are they not always on 
the popular side — always going with the multitude, even if it 
be to do evil ? When or where, in any instance, have they 
dared to grapple with a corrupt public sentiment, and to run 
the risk of losing their salary and position in society ? I tell 
you that men who can see the image of God desecrated, and 
three millions of their o\vn countrymen trampled into the dust, 
and turned into goods and chattels, and sanction the awful 
deed, because public sentiment demands it at their hands, are 
the men who would just as readily throw the Bible — all the 
books in the universe — into the flames, if the same pressure 
was brought to bear upon them as in the case of the enslaved 
in our land. The greater includes the less ; " for whether is 
greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gifl" — a man 
or a book ? The clergy of the country, with here and there 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 1Y9 

an exceptional case, have no other God before them than pub- 
lic sentiment. Just as public sentiment changes they change. 
They have no " higher law." They are facile trimmers and 
obsequious time-servers. And it is so in the nature of the 
case; for. by their very position, they must necessarily con- 
form to the views of their employers, or they will not be 
employed ; and so they are fearfully tempted, all the way 
through, to suppress their convictions of duty, where an un- 
popular truth is struggling upward, lest they shall be turned 
out of house and home, with their wives and little ones, not 
knowing where to lay their heads. It is a trying and terrible 
position ; and the wonder is, not that so many of them fall, 
but that any of them are able to preserve their integrity. But 
they are none the less guilty for being thus tempted ; for they 
claim to be dead to the world, ambassadors of the despised 
Nazarene, " watchmen upon the walls of Zion," and are there- 
fore to be measured by their own standard, and condemned 
out of their own mouths. 

Mr. Chairman, is it indeed true that the Bible is " the word 
of God 1" " Is it able to make men wise unto salvation *?" Is 
its circulation essential to the redemption of the world 1 So 
we are told by the clergy and the church. Then look at this 
soul-harrowing-fact. As a nation, we are overwhelmingly or- 
thodox ; yet what are we doing ? An act of unheard-of 
monstrosity ! We have deliberately conspired, with Satanic 
malignity, to prevent one sixth portion of our population from 
having the Bible, so that they may not know what it is that 
God requires — so that they may have no chance for their 
souls' salvation — so that their eternal damnation may be made 
sure ! For is it not a fundamental doctrine in the orthodox 
creed, that those who die in their sins, unrepentant, shall be 
damned beyond recovery ? And yet this orthodox nation 
makes " the Word of God" a sealed book to three millions of 
people, who are groping in darkness, " without God and with- 
out hope," and, by reducing them as near as possible to the 



180 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

brute creation, endeavors to force them down to hell, under 
the slave-driver's lash ! Oh ! if there be such a place as the 
hell described, and if there be in it one portion lower and 
hotter than another, surely it must be reserved for those who 
are doing this work of damnation to those whom they enslave! 

But I am not willing to take the American clergy and 
church at their word, though they claim to be " evangelical." 
They can not believe in such a doctrine, or in such a place of 
torment. It is too horrid a thought, that, believing it, they 
deliberately striite down the sacred institution of marriage at 
a blow ; make " Sodom and Gomorrah" the condition of the 
whole Southern country ; take away the Bible, and the means 
of learning the way of salvation ; corrupt, debauch, and im- 
brute on a colossal scale, so as to make the damnation of 
their victims inevitable, according to their own creed ! No, 
sir ; I choose not to credit what they say they believe in re- 
gard to those who die unrepentant ; for otherwise it makes 
them monsters in the universe of God. The truth is, their 
faith is abstract and traditional; they believe what it is 
fashionable to believe, and are careful never to be found in 
conflict with public opinion. Their piety walks in silver 
slippers. 

The clergy generally teach that the Bible is from God, and 
we must not question its divinity or authority ; and thus they 
attempt to stultify our reason. Then they claim that God has 
called them to be the expounders of His Word. In this way 
they acquire power, and subserve their own selfish purposes. 
They care nothing .for the Bible, aside from their professional 
calling. It is " the means whereby they live," and get rep- 
utation and influence. They belong to the class whom Jesus 
branded as " blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow 
a camel" — " hypocrites, who shut up the kingdom of heaven 
against men, neither going in themselves nor suflfering them 
that are entering to go in" — "for all their works they do to 
be seen of men." 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 181 

Yes, sir ; " to be seen of men !" They must be deferen- 
tially recognized in their professional garb, or their piety will 
not operate. Let me give you an illustration. Formerly it 
was customary in our anti-slavery meetings to call directly 
upon this or that clergyman present to offer vocal prayer ; and 
tnere was never any backwardness on their part, so long as 
they were singled out, and it was officially announced from 
the platform that " the Eev. Dr. ," or " the Rev. Profes- 
sor ," would invoke the blessing of Heaven upon the 

object for which, we had assembled. Afterward, partly to 
give no offense to our Quaker associates, but mainly to abolish 
every distinction of this kind on the anti-slavery platform, this 
formality was dispensed with ; and while, as hitherto, an op- 
portunity was granted for vocal prayer, it was left to the 
spontaneous prompting of the soul that might feel moved to 
offer it, without regard to station. What, sir, has been the 
result ? Those reverend interceders have never since offered, 
up a single supplication, though sometimes present in great 
number ! Yet they say it indicates a sad lack of devotional 
feeling to open such meetings without prayer in the manner 
designated. Why, then, have they remained dumb ? No 
matter what may be their reply — their professional pride has 
been wounded, for they " love to be seen of men." 

So in regard to the Bible. Professionally they will do it 
homage, so long as they can profit by it. They will interpret 
it only to the extent that public sentiment will bear. They 
have no vision for the future, but live in the past. They dare 
not be men now. No reformatory movement receives any 
countenance from them ; for they are among the wise and pru- 
dent, and, instead of being willing to be made of no reputa- 
tion, like the Master whom they profess to follow, demonstrate 
by their lives that they love the praises of men more than the 
praise of God. 

I shall reserve what I have to say in further elucidation of 
this subject for another occasion. 



182 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mr. Selden J. Finney, of Ohio, offered the following reso- 
lution : 

Resolved — That all the Orthodox clergymen of the city of Hartford, 
and of all other places who have received or seen a copy of the call for 
this Convention, and can, and have not and will not, come forvrard upoD 
this platform, and defend or attempt to defend the Bible from the 
charges brought against their views of its origin, authority, and influ- 
ence, by free and unprejudiced minds, have openly declared their own 
infidelity to their professions of theological faith ; that they love reli- 
gious tyranny better than religious freedom; that they have, by 
refusing to discuss with us the great questions before this Convention, 
declared publicly their weakness and the folly of their arrogant assump- 
tions to be called competent teachers of the people, upon all matters 
pertaining to theological, religious, and moral subjects ; that they love 
popular favor more than common good ; that they are, therefore, moral 
cowards, and deserve to be abandoned by public patronage, and pointed 
out by every true reformer as the Pharisees of this nineteenth century 
— seeking to enslave more and more the mind of man to the dark 
dogmas and absurd superstitions of ancient mythology. 

The Convention then adjourned to June 4th, half-past ten 

o'clock, A.M. 



THIRD DAY— MORNING SESSION. 

Saturday^ June 4. 

The Convention having been called to order by the Pres- f' 
ident, Mr. Barker, of Ohio — 

A discussion ensued as to the nfethod of regulating the de- 
bate, and as to the length of time to be occupied by each 
speaker, in which discussion Messrs. Pillsbury, Barker, Black > 
well. Turner, Storrs, Davis, Garrison, Burgess, and Mrs. E. L. ■' 
Eose participated. 

The previous question was then moved ; and it being de 
cided which side of the question was then to be heard — 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONYENTION. 183 

Mr. S. B. Brittan, of New York, came forward and made 
the following speech : 

Mr. Chairman, 1 am prompted to ask your attention and the 
indulgence of the audience on this occasion, because I feel as- 
sured that the views of a Jarge number of Spiritualists, respect- 
ing the Bible, have not found an expression in the able addresses 
already delivered. I propose to take a somewhat different view 
of the subject, and may not precisely agree with any one of the 
several speakers who have preceded me. 

1 can not say that 1 am here to oppose the Bible, nor shall 
I insist that \t^ errors are divinely inspired. However,! re- 
gard this book as a work of peculiar interest, and I can not 
doubt its value to those who entertain rational views of its con- 
tents. 1 am happy to accept this book, but I must receive it for 
what it really is. I can not take along with it the sacred fictions 
to which it has given birth. The book contains many beauti- 
ful and useful things. There is much valuable history in the 
Bible which it would be folly to reject, and I therefore re- 
ceive it as history ; 1 accept its poetry — of which there are 
some sublime and beautiful examples — as poetry ; its records 
of spiritual experience are very numerous and greatly diversi- 
fied, and 1 joyfully embrace these as among the proofs of our 
immortal life, and as illustrations of the intercourse between 
the Physical and Spiritual Worlds. Its descriptions of so-called 
miracles I must regard as honest, and for the most part relia- 
ble accounts of actual occurrences. With my present views 
of the nature of the human mind, and of the philosophy of in- 
spiration, I can not suppose that those who recorded such 
experiences were free from a liability to err, but I do feel as- 
sured that they were honest men, and that many of the phe- 
nomena described were produced by the direct agency of spirit- 
ual beings. That the Bible is either entirely or exclusively 
the word of God — the letter being inspired — or that it comes 
to us with Divine, infallible authority, I do not believe. 

No language is adequate to express our highest thoughts, 
or to disclose our deepest emotions. Men who are not in- 
spired, according to the prevailing acceptation of the term, 
often feel that all language is too tame and powerless to re- 
veal the depths of mortal feeling, or to reach the loftiest con- 
ceptions of the human intellect. And if we, who claim no 



184: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

very exalted inspiration, find language wholly inadequte to 
this purpose, how can any man be so profane as to attempt to 
rank the Infinite beneath himself by presuming that the all of 
revelation is comprehended in this single book ! Indeed, the 
idea that any written communication can be an infallible 
guide to all men under every circumstance of life, and in 
every age of the world, is, in my humble opinion, simply ab- 
surd ; for however perfect the sources of this inspiration may 
be, perfection in the absolute sense certainly does not charac- 
terize the modes of this intercourse. High and holy beings may ' 
have inspired many things contained in these Scriptures — I 
believe they did — but the assumption that we have here a 
complete transcript of their thoughts, and more especially that 
the book contains all divine wisdom which it may be requisite ' 
for man to know in the present and the future, is to limit the 
Infinite and to set bounds to human progress. 

I need not remind you that the meaning of words is often 
determined by parallels of latitude and longitude. The mean- ' 
ing of an important passage is sometimes entirely obscured by J 
our inability to determine the sense in which the author em- 
ployed a single term, or by the carelessness of the transcriber j 
or printer in pointing a paragraph. Moreover, the various 
mental attributes and tendencies of men lead to the adoption 
of as many opinions as there are expositors or readers. This 
is obviously true in the widest sense among men who do their * 
own thinking. If the writers of the ancient Scriptures were 
overshadowed by a Spiritual and Divine presence, they may 
have understood what they endeavored to express ; but if the 
Divine aflflatus was long since withdrawn, and men are no 
more inspired, it is morally impossible, at this remote period, 
that the original impressions should be communicated to us. ; 
Before we can be unerringly informed and directed, we also 
must be inspired, and not merely the sources of that inspira- 
tion, but its modes ^ and our capacity to apprehend the import 
of divinely- originated ideas must be perfected. 

Revelation can not make any thing true that was not true \ 
before. It never did create any truth. The word implies j 
nothing more than this : Revelation is the making known by- 
means of written characters, articulate sounds, or otherwise, 
some truth that before existed. All the truths of revelation 
existed in the constitution of things long before they found ex- 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 18? 

pression in human language. The act of tracing them on 
stones, parchments, or in books, adds nothing to their signifi . 
cance or authority. The original revelation of God is re- 
corded in the Physical and Spiritual Worlds. These consti- 
tute a grand and comprehensive record of God's thoughts, 
.which no utterance of ancient prophet, or seer, or record of 
Jewish traditions and miracles, has ever equaled. 

Some years since 1 was brought to the ordeal of deciding 
whether I would remain in the Christian Church or not. The 
issue depended on my solution of the single question, whether 
I would consent to accept this book as an unerring guide in 
all matters of faith and practice. The ecclesiastical associa- 
tion of which I was a member required me to file a declaration 
with the standing clerk, to the effect that 1 believed the Scrip- 
tures to contain " a sufficient,'^ and, indeed, " the only rule of 
faith and action,^'' for all men in all ages of the world. On 
reflection I found that my faith and practice, in the various 
relations of life, were regulated and governed by all that I had 
learned from every other source as well as from the Bible, and 
consequently I could not make the declaration. 1 am sorry 
to say that this ordeal was instituted by one of the professedly 
liberal Christian denominations — the Universalists. Those 
who had inculcated the largest liberty consistent with Nature 
and Reason, who had loudly professed to exercise the broadest 
charity, and to favor the most unlimited toleration of theolog- 
ical opinions and modes of religious culture and worship, 
ventured, in an hour of seeming peril, to falsify their profes- 
sions by this effort to shackle the mind. I had never been 
catechised on this point, and on entering the Church no clerical 
inquisitor thought proper to question the general soundness 
of my religious opinions. There was, at that time, no mor- 
bid apprehensions that the Church was in danger. The door 
stood open, and the sentinels did not invariably require the 
shibboleth or theological pass-word. I was allowed to walk 
erect into the Church, and to stand upright after I was in ; 
and w^hen at length the judument was required to bow, when 
the deepest convictions were to be smothered and the soul 
dishonored, I took the hazard of walking out of the Church. 
(Applause.) There was room enough outside, on the great 
plane of nature and reason, where I might be permitted to 
study the sublime revelations of the Universe without re- 



186 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

straint, and to worship the Father in spirit, in his own great 
temple. 

Now, while I accept the Bible with the qualifications al- 
ready specified, I hold that nothing in this world is too sacred 
to be examined. (Cries of hear, hear.) If I can not sub- 
ject its contents to the action of the rational faculties, and de- 
cide upon its merits precisely as I am accustomed to judge 
of other books, take it away. (Hear, hear.) Give it to be- 
ings that have no reason. For what purpose are these faculties 
given to me — to man — if not that they may be exercised ? 
Is not the Universe revealed to us to incite them to action 1 
The Material and Spiritual Worlds are filled with problems 
of vast significance and revelations of wondrous power and 
glory ; and these, and all things, invite us to observe and to 
reason. If, therefore, any man has a sacred book, a stereo- 
typed theology, or a lucrative settlement that is likely to be 
jeopardized by the developments of science and the results 
of enlightened reason, he had better dispose of his interest in 
the same now, for the present age will try his treasures " as 
by fire." 

An ancient inspired speaker once said, " In him (God) we 
live, and move, and have our being" (Acts xvii. 28). If the 
Divine Spirit is in all and every thing that has life, if his pres- 
ence and power are revealed in the beautiful forms and activi- 
ties around and within us, we can not resist the conviction that 
Inspiration is universal and perpetual. God is in all things, 
and by the power of his indwelling presence all things have 
life. The Infinite Spirit dwells in all men, therefore all are 
inspired, not indeed in the same measure, but in degrees cor- 
responding to their several wants and capacities. If God is 
in all, if the divine life and thought flow into and animate all 
living and intelligent creatures, it may reasonably be inferred 
that revelation is purely natural — in the sense in which we 
use the term — and that all men, in every age of the world, 
have been inspired of God, in so far as they have become fit 
receptacles of the Truth. 

It will be perceived that Inspiration, as viewed in this con- 
nection, is something more than the mere records of Hebrew 
prophets and poets. It is theinfluence of the Spiritual World 
which overshadows the realms of physical existence and the 
power of the ever-present God — present in every thing, but 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 187 

especially in the human spirit. Inspiration is not, for these 
reasons, confined to this book ; it is not all comprehended in 
any other book, nor yet in all books. It is a living, present, 
and universal truth, displayed in the graduated influx of the 
elements of the Spiritual into the Physical Worlds. Inspi- 
ration is not unnatural ; as we employ tei-ms, it is not siqoer- 
natural. And here I wish to define what I understand by 
Nature, for we may difler endlessly about things unless we 
agree in the use of words. • It is believed that nine tenths of 
all the controversies, from first to last, have arisen from a dif- 
ferent understanding of terms, rather than from any radical 
difference with respect to principles.- (A Voice — "Yes.") 

The common idea presumes that Nature comprehends 
merely the visible forms and phenomenal aspects of things. 
It limits Nature to what addresses the senses only. The in- 
ward laws and vitalizing principles of the Universe, and all 
Spiritual existences, are not included in the domain of Nature 
according to this definition. If nature only embraces what 
is tangible to the senses, I believe in supernatiiralism ; so do 
you; so, also, do all men. But we object to the popular defi- 
nition. Nature, as we regard the subject, is not the mere shell 
of the Universe, and. the superficial aspects of its ever-chang- 
ing phenomena; it comprehends the whole system of out- 
ward existences, with their internal forces, and the laws which 
regulate all invisible material processes and external develop- 
ments. Whatever, therefore, relates to mind in its mundane 
relations comes within the domain of Nature ; and as all in- 
spiration and revelation, in every age of the world, have been 
given to us through the medium of the human faculties, reve- 
lation is seen to belong to the empire of natural results. If, 
on the contrary. Nature is admitted to comprehend only the 
grosser forms and visible changes of the material world, the 
execution of the simplest mechanical operation is supernatu- 
rally performed, inasmuch as the ordinary operation of ma- 
terial forces, unaided by intelligence, would never construct a 
table, or print a copy of the Scriptures. Thus it will be per- 
ceived that the printing and binding of the book are super- 
natural in the same general sense in which the revelations it 
contains are so. 

The vail that separates man from the invisible world is being 
drawn away or rendered transparent to the illuminated vision. 



188 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

We are now assured that man sustains vital and definite rela- 
tions to the world of spiritual realities as truly as he does to the 
grosser forms and phenomena of the world below. Nothing 
can so exalt man above all low and groveling pursuits as the 
consciousness that he is forever allied to the spiritual and di- 
vine. Men have long been constrained and materialized by 
the fiction that their relations are all earthly, and that they 
have no capacity to receive divine instruction from any higher 
source than the pulpit. It has been said, " As a man thinketh, 
so is he ;" if he is only conscious of the existence of the mate- 
rial chain which connects him with inferior creations, he must 
necessarily feel that he is cut off from all companionship with 
higher natures. This conviction can only debase and sensual- 
ize the man by checking his noblest aspirations and diverting 
the whole current of thought and feeling into material and 
earthly channels. On the contrary, tell him that he is not less 
intimately allied to the inhabitants of the Angel- world, that he is 
surrounded by spiritual principles and entities, and that in pro- 
portion as he lives naturally and truly he will be conscious of 
his higher relations, and enjoy communion with the invisible and 
divine, and you. exalt, dignify, and spiritualize his humanity. 

I can not indorse all that has been repeatedly expressed or 
implied before this Convention respecting the clergy. I do 
not believe that, as a body, they are willfully hypocritical. 
When I remember how many have torn themselves away 
from friends, from the sanctuary of home, and from the altars 
of their country, and have exhausted their energies, and laid 
down their lives in heathen lands, I may question their \\Tis- 
dom, but I am also bound to respect their motives. While 
I am altogether in favor of free thought and speech, I will 
neither ask nor exercise the liberty to assail my fellow-men 
in a spirit of acrimony. It is the rightful prerogative of every 
man to express in civil terms his convictions respecting any 
and every subject which involves the rights and interests of 
mankind. This liberty I claim without hesitation, and exercise 
without restraint. Let us be free in this manner. In the lan- 
guage of another : 

" Let truth no more be gagged, nor conscience dungeoned, 
Nor science be impeached of godlessness. 
****** 
But let every man have due liberty ' 

To speak an honest mind in every land." 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 189 

H. C. Wright — I wish to call the attention of the Conven- 
tion to the charges that have been tabled against the Bible. 
I will add to those charged. I care only to answer one 
point made on the other side of the question. I am not anx- 
ious to answer any thing they say, except to allude to one 
idea, and that will come in the process of my remarks. I 
offered a resolution at the opening of this meeting, charging 
the Bible as sanctioning polygamy, concubinage, prostitution, 
Trholesale plunder and murder, and oppression, and I think 
that these charges have been sustained ; and not one word 
has yet been said to meet the arguments that have been made 
on the subject, not a word. (Hear, hear.) My friend Barker 
has presented a great multitude of passages to sustain this 
charge ; but one single passage has been touched upon which 
we have presented — to wit, the one touching slavery or op- 
pression ; and how has that been met 1 I leave it to the 
friends to say, only just repeating the passage. There is a 
passage which tells the Israelites that they may purchase cer- 
tain persons, and give them to their children for their posses- 
sion forever ; and there is a passage which authorized a master 
to whip his slaves to death, and he is not to be punished be- 
cause they are his money. There is the passage. I leave it. 
Besides that, I do not know that any effect has been made to 
meet the arguments we have presented. I have other argu- 
ments to present against that book, and one which strikes at 
the foundation of the old idea of revelation or inspiration. It 
is this : that book represents God as punishing this world — 
punishing human beings by arbitrary laws and arbitrary pen- 
alties. I w^ill not quote one passage to prove this. I repeat 
the charge, and I wish it might be answered, if any body sees 
fit to answer it. That book represents God as punishing 
men by arbitrary laws and arbitrary penalties. What I 
mean by arbitrary penalties is, laws given by arbitrary com- 
mand to some individual designed to cover the whole human 
race to the end of time, and arbitrary penalties affixed to 



190 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

them. Now, sir, this is a point that I wish to dwell upon 
considerably. I deny that the God of nature ever issued to 
the human race a single arbitrary law, or affixed to any law 
an arbitrary penalty ; but all his laws and all his penalties 
are fixed, unchanging, written in the nature of man's body and 
soul ; and I repeat, that if men would abide by the laws that 
God has incorporated into their nature, their bodies, and souls, 
and obey these wants, they would be just what they are ca- 
pable of being, and just what God designed they should be. I 
will repeat it in other words : Man has certain wants — nat- 
ural wants. The first object is to ascertain what are those 
natural wants ; and the second is, to give these natural wants 
a natural and healthful supply ; for instance, we want air, we 
want light and food to sustain our bodies ; we want society, 
love, and sympathy to sustain our souls. We are under cer 
tain fixed conditions of life and health, of body and soul, and 
the first great business of man is to find out what are these 
conditions of life and health, and to comply with them ; and 
this is the whole of human life and duty. A book is presented 
to me called the Bible, and I am required to believe that, as 
a whole, it is the Word of God. But I find that book filled 
■with arbitrary commands which interfere with these fixed con- 
ditions of life and health. For instance, they interfere with 
the law of parentage. Is there a man or woman, that is a 
father or a mother, that does not know that to stone a child 
to death for disobedience is opposed to the fixed law of par- 
entage — the instinct of parental laws ; and yet there is a com- 
mand to the parent to stone the child to death for disobe- 
dience. Is there any person that does not know that the 
command that a child should be put to death for the sin of 
the parent is opposed to the instinctive feeling of justice in 
the human soul 1 Now the Bible comes in with an arbitrary- 
command, and sending Abraham to go to a certain mountain, 
and there to kill his child as a sacrifice to God. I have been 
often asked, Would you offer your child as a burnt-offering if 



HAEtFOED BIBLE CONVE]SfTIOH. 191 

God should command you to do it? No, I would not, is my 
answer. What would you do ? I would lay such a God on 
the altar, and I would sacrifice him to justice and humanity — 
i. e., I believe in the existence of no such a God. (Hisses and 
applause.) It has been often asked of me, Would you stone 
your child to death for disobedience if God told you to do iti 
No, is my answer, I would not. What would you do? I 
would stone all such Gods to death, and let the child live. 
God, as a rule of life to man, is to each one just what he con- 
ceives him to be. I defy the power and scorn the worship of 
the God of man as I do the power and worship of Moloch or 
of Juggernaut, because he sanctioned or required practices 
as impure, as unjust, and as murderous as do these. Moses' 
ideas of God were about as false and unnatural as are those 
of the Hindoo or the Mohammedan. Yet we are required to 
receive them as true ! I have no respect for a God that re- 
quires me to violate the laws of my being. The God of the 
Bible does in some places require human beings to violate the 
fixed laws of their nature. I will not obey any such behest, 
come from whom it may. I have in myself fixed, inherent 
rights ; and so has every other human being. It is unjust for 
any being in the universe to require us to disobey the fixed 
condition of life, body and soul, and then leave us to the 
penalty of that disobedience. God can not justly suspend a 
single law of my being while he is God and I am man. When 
he changes my nature, then he may put me under other laws ; 
but with this nature I am under fixed conditions of health and 
happiness, and God has no right to change them unless he 
changes my nature. Now the Bible comes in, and in the name 
of God requires man to violate these fixed conditions, and 
commands men to hate and to slaughter one another, and to 
do various deeds, without any regard to the fixed conditions of 
life and health under which the true God of nature placed 
them. 
I wish to say here, in answer to the friend who, last night, 



192 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

called our attention to earthquakes, to floods, to cholera, and 
to pestilence — he says, " God has swallowed up cities by 
earthquakes ; God has swept the world with a flood, and with 
the cholera." I simply deny that God ever sent an earthquake 
to kill human beings. He never sent a flood nor a storm to 
kill men, and I believe it is a blasphemous libel upon a wise 
and just God to say that he ever sent a thunderbolt to destroy 
any one. And I repeat that He has no right so to do. I say- 
that Deity has no right to take me out of this state of exist- 
ence, except by one process; and it is the very process by 
which he charges the caterpillar into a butterfly, i. e., by a 
fixed and just law ; and if human beings would allow these 
laws to work out their designed results, we should be carried 
on our course just so long as we are to be — which I think is 
for eternity — without any pain, sorrow, or anxiety ; but in all 
harmony, joy, and love. It is monstrous to say that God ever 
sent an earthquake to destroy a city. My reply is, that if 
the city had not been there, the earthquake would have come 
there just the same. The earthquake is under fixed laws as 
much as I am ; and if men get in the way of earthquake- 
men must die. Earthquakes are just as essential to the hap 
piness of mankind as food is ; and if men do not get in the 
way of floods, the floods will not touch them. I walk through 
your streets, and a thunderbolt comes from the clouds, and 
kills me ; but God did not send that thunderbolt to kill me. 

The thunderbolt was drawn down, and it struck me and 
killed me, but God did not put me there to be killed, nor send 
that to kill me. But whence comes cholera % It is simply 
the result of human agency. Did men live rightly, do you . 
think they would ever sufler from cholera % I wish to say 
once for all, to cover the whole ground, I do not believe that 
God ever took a human being out of this world except by one 
process. I do not believe that He ever put to death an infant, 
or a child, or a human being in the strength of manhood and 
womanhood, but only by the operation of natural law. He 



HAj^TFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 193 

takes them out of this state into another happily and pleasantly, 
not by suffering and anxiety. This is His way, and if we go 
out in any other way, it is not God's doings. 

I once had a friend who lost a child in this way. The child 
was three months' old. It was in pain. The mother gave it 
a dose of paregoric, and the child died. The priest came to 
preach the funeral sermon. He took for his text, " The Lord 
gave, and the Lord hath taken away" (two falsehoods in one 
passage), " and blessed be the name of the Lord." He went 
on to say that the Lord killed his child, first because he fore- 
saw that the parents would love the child better than they 
loved him ; in the second place, he foresaw that the child, if 
suffered to grow up, would become a sinner, and be in danger 
of going to hell ; and so he killed it in infancy to save it from 
hell. But it was the mother that killed the child, not God. 
She gave the paregoric. She killed the child as really as if 
she had struck a dagger to its heart, not, indeed, intentionally, 
but ignorantly. Who was responsible for the existence of 
that child ? Why, the book represents God as responsible 
for its existence, as the Creator of .all the children. With all 
deference to the book, I say the father and mother were re- 
sponsible for the existence of the child, as really as I should 
be responsible for my death if I should cut my throat. It is 
false to say that God is responsible for the existence or death 
of the child. God never killed a child. Children die. One 
half of all that are born die under five years of age. To make 
God responsible for this wholesale slaughter " of infants, little 
ones," is to make him a fiend or a fool — too wicked or too 
weak to be loved and respected. And such is the being pre- 
sented by parts of the Bible, and by Christians and heathens, 
to be loved and worshiped as God! I have no such God 
before me. 

I deny the idea of an arbitrary revelation, and the Bible 
purports to be such a revelation. Do you think a God of 
justice could give a law of life to one man for the whole race ? 

9 



194 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ^ 

My idea is this, that every human being brings into existence 
with him, by virtue of his existence, a law of life. He is 
under fixed natural conditions of health and life, with which, 
if he complies, he will be a happy man in this world — just 
what God wants him to be. (Applause.) 

Now what in the world can we ask for more 1 We know 
it is so, that every human being is under certain conditions of 
life and health, of body and soul ; and just in proportion as 
we comply with these conditions, we shall be happy — we shall 
be in heaven. Just in proportion as we disobey and disregard 
these conditions, we shall be in hell, here in this state, not off 
yonder. I care nothing about future hell, if I can keep out 
of it here ; nor your heaven in the future, if I can keep in it 
now. The only way to escape a future hell is to keep out of 
a present hell. The only way to secure a future heaven is to 
secure a present one. 

The Bible represents God as establishing a priesthood, and 
sacrifices of animals. If it represents any thing it does that. 
I shall not quote a passage to prove it ; there is the Book. 
You all know it makes God responsible for the existence of 
a priesthood and a system of bloody sacrifices. 

Now, will you tell me where God ever imposed upon 
human beings a duty which they can not perform, each one 
for himself and herself? Will you tell me that the Author 
of my being has put me under laws which I must get some- 
body else to obey for me 1 that I must run the risk of having 
my eternal destiny depending upon the chance of my getting 
a certain priest, that must be decked in the contemptible tom- 
foolery of the high priesthood, in order to stand between me 
and my God. (Hisses and applause.) Will you tell me that 
God converts himself into an almighty tailor, to show men 
how to make a garment for the priests ; and then into an al- 
mighty carpenter, to show men how to erect the altar and the 
ark. See the picture. See the lard, the liver, the fat, and 
entrails of that ox burning on the altar. See the smoke with 



HAKTI^OED BIBLE CONVENTION. 195 

the foul smell ascending, and the great God bending down 
from the skies over it, and snuffing it in as a sweet-smelling 
savor. And with such a bloody service God is said to be well 
pleased. (See the first ten chapters of Leviticus.) It may please 
the God of Moses, but it must be of no avail before the God 
of nature. He requires love, justice, and mercy, and not sac- 
rifices. Those who attributed such things to God may have 
been honest, but they were mistaken. Is it possible to con- 
ceive that the Almighty should ever establish such a law 
as that ? Every human being is to be his own priest, and his 
own church, and his own lawgiver, judge, and king, under God. 
Each one must decide for himself what is right or wrong, on 
his individual responsibility. 

Now I will go to the New Testament. I have a contro- 
versy with some things in that portion of the Bible, and I 
wish to speak with all deference to your opinions of Jesus of 
Nazareth. I have many views of him, and shall speak 
of him from my stand-point, not from yours. I believe 
him to be a man, and nothing more. I sit in judgment upon 
his teachings and doings as I do upon those of other men, and I 
judge him by the same law by which I would judge any other 
man. If I see any thing that I think was wrong in him I say 
so. I would say here I believe that he was a pure and per- 
fect spirit, and had high and holy motives. I love the name. 
I never in my life had as just and true an appreciation of Jesus 
of Nazareth as I have at this moment ; but while I say this, 
I believe in one great essential point. Jesus of Nazareth was 
mistaken. He did seek to found a sect in the world. I re- 
peat it, he sought to found a sect among men as other reform- 
ers of his age did, in Greece and Eome, in Persia and in 
Egypt, and the sect he founded is called Christians now ; and 
of all the sects that ever this world saw — of all the sects the 
earth knows — not one has ever committed more gross outrages 
upon humanity than the sect called Christians — never. The 
history of Christians — of Christianity — demonstrates the truth 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

of my remark. I say that sect, as a sect, mark you. There 
are noble individuals who have come out, I know, and now 
stand as infidels. I would not go anywhere but right here 
before us, and I know my friend Garrison will excuse me ; if 
he does not, I shall say it. When he began the anti-slavery 
movement he belonged to the Christian sect — and the most 
orthodox of these too. He vainly supposed that he could get 
the Christian sect to help him- — to aid his work. He appealed 
to the ministers of Christendom ; he implored them. I know 
he did. He advertised in a Boston paper, asking for a house 
in which he might plead the cause of millions of our down- 
trodden countrymen. No Christian house in the city could 
be opened for him. He had nothing to pay for it ; and he 
said, " I will not pay for it, for I am bleeding for humanity. 
If I do not have an offer of a house in which to plead their 
cause, I will plead it on the commons ;" but the Atheists' 
hall was offered him gratis. (Applause.) He had to go to 
Atheists to get a place to plead the cause of humanity. 
Humanity was driven out of the Church. There was more 
sympathy for humanity in the Atheism of Boston than in the 
religion of Boston. I prefer a humane Atheism to an inhuman 
religion, or anti-slavery and anti-war Atheism to a pro-slavery 
and pro-war religion. In this country Christendom has about 
one hundred millions of dollars invested in houses consecrated 
to God, who does not need them ; who says he " dwells in a 
house not made with hands." A hundred millions of dollars, 
to carry on your God-worship in these temples that are not 
to be opened to the cause of humanity ! Those who own them 
are called Christians ; and it is a sect that purports to have 
been founded by Jesus of Nazareth. He founded a sect, and 
those of his followers, at the beginning, were devoted men. 
Paul! I admire the energy and enterprise of the man to 
establish what he believed to be truth. I admire the spirit, 
of Jesus that led him to Jerusalem, when he knew what should 
befall him there. He died for what he believed to be true. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 197 

That is the highest glory a man can have on earth. Though 
you be mistaken, if you are ready to suffer martyrdom for 
what you believe to be true, as Jesus did, you shall have my 
boundless respect and admiration. But Jesus established a 
sect. The first members of that sect were true and devoted 
men and women ; but, as in all sects, in the course of time it 
became a pure despotism, and every step of progress in 
science that sect has opposed, as a sect. It has imprisoned 
men for the discovery of the modern science of astronomy ; 
it has imprisoned men for discoveries in chemistry ; and what 
was it that tried to put down Mary Wortley Montague for 
introducing vaccination from Mohammedan countries into 
Christian England ? When Dr. Harvey discovered the cir- 
culation of the blood, who was it that arrayed themselves 
against the circulation of the blood 1 (Applause.) The whole 
Christian Church. Who was it that offered in the Evangel- 
ical Alliance in Edinburgh a resolution to inquire into the 
tendency of total abstinence to infidelity ? When I was in 
Edinburgh there was offered at a session of that body, by one 
of their members, a resolution to this effect : " Resolved — 
That a committee be appointed to inquire into the tendency 
of total abstinence societies to infidelity." 

The Reverend donkies ! I thought I could see their ears 
elongating ! It was solemnly argued for a long time, until a 
friend offered an amendment to this effect : " Resolved — That 
the committee be instructed to inquire into the tendency of 
drunkenness to Christianity." 

What founded the inquisition 1 Who hung the witches ? 
Who have been opposed to the spirit of religious toleration ? 
What, Mr. Chairman, has put on the statute-book of this State 
a law, now standing as a part of the statute of the laws of the 
State of Connecticut ? It is headed, " Crimes against Morality 
and Religion — Blasphemy. Section 80th of the Laws of 
Connecticut. Every person who shall be guilty of blasphemy 
against God, or either of the persons of the Holy Trinity" — 



198 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

mark it — " or the Christian Church, or the Holy Scriptures, 
and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by a 
fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, and by imprisonment 
in the county jail not exceeding one year." 1 ask who is it 
that put it on the statute-book ? (A Voice — Good men.) I 
answer, it is the Christian sect. The Trinity has been estab- 
lished by law, and it is made a crime in Connecticut to be a 
Unitarian. (Applause.) 

I say Jesus was mistaken when he founded a sect. Again, 
Jesus w^as mistaken. He established a false principle when 
he said, " Whoso believeth not shall be damned," as though a 
man was to blame or not for his belief. He can not help but 
believe if there is evidence for it ; and if he can not find evi- 
dence, then he can not believe. Death was threatened, in the 
old dispensation, to all who called in question the JewV idea 
of God — persecution of the most cruel and bitter kind was 
their portion. The husband was to conspire against the wife 
of his bosom, if she changed her views concerning God. They 
were neither to spare their son nor daughter, and they were 
themselves to hurl the first stone at them. 

Jesus, too, was opposed to the law of marriage. In Jesus' 
definition of adultery, he says, " 1 say unto you, whosoever 
looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed 
adultery with her in his own heart." Does he mean to say 
that it would be a sin to live with a woman as a wife, with- 
out a legal recognition of it? No such thing; for he had 
little heed to human legislation in any thing. He simply 
meant to say, that if a man desires a woman, he is an adulterer. 
He established the rule, that for a man to wish for a wife, or 
a woman for a husband, was inconsistent with the highest 
point of perfection at which he aimed ; and this was the rule 
of the Essenes, a sect among the Jews ; and it was common 
in Greece and Rome among all who sought for a higher state 
of purity. I say Jesus put his foot on the marriage law of 
our nature. In doing so, his motive was good, but in judg- 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 199 

ment he erred. Paul, in imitation of Jesus, said, " It is better 
not to marry ;" and the early Christians sought to carrry it 
out, and the result was most disastrous. They retired into 
caves and deserts. Men were separated from women, and 
women from men. I believe that Jesus was mistaken. Man 
can no more live without woman, and become what he was 
designed to be, than he can live and be raised without food or 
air, nor can woman without man. The wife is more essential 
to the eternal happy destiny of the husband than Jesus of 
Nazareth is, and so the husband to the M'ife. If every man 
can truly sing the song of " Glory to God in the highest, peace 
on earth and good- will to men," it is over the advent of the 
husband to the wife, and the wife to the husband, as in the 
marriage relation, and when they take their child unto their 
arms, and say, " This is our child." It is a savior to them both. 
Christendom points men to Calvary for salvation. It will ere 
long direct them to marriage. It will be seen that we are 
more dependent for our character and destiny for time and 
eternity on our relations to the living than to the dead. The 
mission of the husband to the wife, of the wife to the husband, 
and of the child to the parents, is more directly connected with 
the character and destiny of the human family than is the 
mission of Jesus. The man who is prepared to meet his wife, 
the woman who is prepared to meet her husband, and the 
parents who are prepared to meet their child, these are the 
men and women who, alone, are truly prepared to meet their 
God ; for such are the pure in heart, who see God. Jesus 
could not be one of earth's saviors in the true and highest 
sense, because he was neither a husband nor a father. He 
knew not hov/ to guide men into the purest and most exalted 
relations of life, because he never entered into them himself. 
In many things his life was worthy of imitation. In regard 
to marriage and parentage, his teaching and example wero 
unnatural ; and few there he that heed them. On the subject 
of marriage and parentage the Bible is mistaken throughout. 



200 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

In the Old Testament, prostitution is sanctioned in its most 
revolting form ; in the New Testament, the marriage relation 
is entirely discouraged. In the former, boundless indulgence 
is granted and encouraged to the sensual passion ; in the latter, 
its indulgence is entirely discouraged. The former encourages 
one extreme ; the latter, the opposite one. Both err, and the 
error has been most disastrous to all who take the whole Bible 
as the Word of God. 

Then who can really believe the story of the miracuJoits 
conception ? It is simply monstrous. There is no evidence 
that Mary herself, or her son Jesus, ever heard of it. Had 
the story been found in any other book, not one would now 
believe it. Should a woman in Hartford, under like circum- 
stances, give out such a story, respecting the paternity of her 
child, would the ministers and churches believe it 1 No. 
Why should they have more confidence in a woman who is 
said to have made such a report eighteen hundred years ago, 
than in her who shall make it now ? I can hardly persuade my- 
self that there is a man or woman in this State who really /^efe 
and believes that Jesus, or any other human being, ever was, 
or ever will be, born of woman without a human father ! 

Equally difficult is it to persuade myself that any human 
being can really feel and believe that a God of justice can be 
appeased by the shedding of innocent blood. Justice satisfied 
by the blood of the gentle Jesus ! Divine justice appeased 
by the blood of one whose soul was love, whose life was in- 
nocence ! Even human justice would scorn to be appeased by 
such a cruel and inhuman deed. Suppose 1 am a sinner fleeing 
before an avenging God. God, with fiery eyeballs, flaming 
with wrath and revenge, and face flushed and rendered hideous 
by furious anger and " wrath waxed hot," rushing upon me 
with the uplifted sword of justice, to thrust me through the 
heart. As he is about to slay me, in steps Jesus, his own son, 
as he is called — his only begotten and well-beloved sou — 
between him and me, and says, " Father, spare that guilty 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 201 

rebel, and kill me." " No matter whom I kill,'' exclaims the 
wrathful Father, the revengeful Judge. " I must have blood. 
I must kill somebody. My justice can never be satisfied with- 
out blood. ' It can be appeased by the blood of the innocent 
as well as by the blood of the guilty. I am not at all par- 
ticular whose blood it is, provided blood is shed, for ' without 
the shedding of blood there is no remission,' and my justice 
can never be appeased. My sense of justice can be met by 
the blood of my own innocent, well-beloved son, as well as 
by the blood of that daring, guilty violator of my law, and 
contemner of my authority." So that just God, as he is 
called, thrust the sword into the heart of the loving, innocent 
Jesus, and pours out his blood, and lets the guilty sinner go ! 
What a picture ! Yet it is the picture Christendom says the 
Bible presents of God. And I look at the book as it is in the 
minds of those who take it as their infallible guide. The 
Bible errs. The doctrine of vicarious atonement is dishonor- 
able to God, and most ruinous to the moral nature of man. 
When justice can be appeased by injustice ; when love can be 
satisfied with hatred ; when truth can be satisfied with false- 
hood, sincerity with hypocrisy, kindness with unkindness, 
purity with impurity, good with evil, then, and not till then, 
can God be reconciled to man by the cruel murder of the 
gentle Jesus. The gospel scheme of salvation, so far as it 
rests on the doctrine of vicarious atonement, is founded on 
cruelty and injustice, and presents God as a monster to be 
loathed, rather than as a father to be loved and adored. 

What shall we do to he saved? The Bible, the Koran, the 
Shaster, the Zendavesta — all give essentially the same answer. 
They all point to a power outside of ourselves. Nature points 
to a Redeemer, a Recuperator in our own souls. If we wound 
our souls by sin, the life-principle, the God within us, must 
heal that wound, or it never can be healed. Nature is true — 
the Bible errs in this matter. 

There are contradictions in the Bible in fundamental moral- 
9* 



202 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

ity. It says to the world, in substance : You shall not kill, and 
you shall kill ; you shall not lie — you may lie ; you shall not 
steal, and you may steal ; you shall not commit adultery, and 
you may commit adultery — for polygamy and •concubinage 
are simply adulter]/, prostitution, no matter who in heaven or 
earth sanctions. The Bible says : You shall not commit mur- 
der, and you may commit murder ; for war is murder in spirit 
and practice, no matter who, in the heavens above or the earth 
beneath, sanctions ; it can be nothing less than murder, assas- 
sination, and piracy before great Nature's law of love, justice, 
and life. The Bible says : You shall not return evil for evil, 
and you may return evil for evil ; you shall not hate your 
brother, and you may hate him ; you shall love your neigh- 
bors, and may hate them ; that you shall not oppress the poor 
and helpless, and that you may whip your bond-men and bond- 
maids to death, without guilt, because " tke^/ are your money P"* 
There is not a good moral precept inculcated in the Bible 
whose opposite is not sanctioned or commended. To recon- 
cile these contradictions is the great business of all believers 
in the Divine origin and authority of the Bible, as a whole. 
Their souls are ever attempting to effect a compromise 
between the extremest contradictions in morals. The belief 
in the doctrine that the Bible, as a whole, is the Word of God, 
necessarily tends to beget, and fasten, and perpetuate a spirit 
of compromise between truth and falsehood, and between 
right and wrong. What else could ever have led this nation 
to attempt a compromise between liberty and slavery ? Hu- 
manity never could have produced the Fugitive Slave Law. 
Nature and Nature's God repudiate the monstrous alliance. 
None but souls accustomed to reconcile the contradictions of 
the Bible could ever have attempted to effect the great Amer- 
ican Compromise — a compromise that is yet to make human- 
ity blush with shame and weep with sorrow over those who 
have been its representatives on earth. 

Mr. Chairman, one thing more, and ray mission in this Con- 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 203 

vention is ended. Why should we set up a claim for the 
writers of the Bible which they never set up for themselves ? 
We know not who wrote the first five books of the Bible. 
We know not who wrote the books of Joshua, Judges, Kings, 
Chronicles, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesi- 
astes, and Solomon's Song. But we do know that not one of 
these lays the least claim to inspiration. Whoever wrote 
them had the good sense not to claim any special, super- 
natural assistance from God in writing. Yet we claim it for 
them without the least evidence of the fact, and without even 
knowing who they were. The four Evangelists, that profess 
to write the history of Jesus, and who have given us all we do 
or ever can know of him, not one of them claims infallibility as 
a writer. They do not profess to be inspired. Not one allu- 
sion is made by the New Testament to their inspiration. 
There is not one word, in the book itself, from which it can 
be inferred that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John were inspired 
of God to write the life of Jesus. Not a miracle was pre- 
tended to have been wrought to prove that they were com- 
missioned of God, and by him rendered infallible to write 
an account of Christ's sayings and doings. The priesthood and 
church of Christendom practice a falsehood and impose on 
mankind when they set up a claim of infallibility for writers 
that make no such claim for themselves. 

Mr. William L. Garrison — I wish to refer to a remark 
made by my friend, Henry C. Wright. It is a form of state- 
ment that is likely to be misunderstood. He said that if God 
wanted him to do a certain thing, he would cut the throat of 
God. (Mr. Wright— I said, "Such a God.") What I 
wanted our friend to say is, that it is not possible for him to 
conceive that God could do such a thing, and that he would 
treat such a representation of God as a false representation. 

Mr. Wright — I wish to use a form of expression not to be 
forgotten — one that would deny in an emphatic manner the 



204 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

existence of any being who would require me to violate the 
laws of my being. Any such being I would trample under 
foot. 

Mr. Garrison being asked by Mr. Haze to explain what 
he meant by the term, " human redemption," as used in one 
of the resolutions offered by him, answered : " Human re- 
demption" is progression in. knowledge, in wisdom, and in 
truth ; thus perfecting ourselves ; simply a matter of pro- 
gression — redemption from a low and fallen state, bringing us 
up to a high and exalted one. (Applause.) 

Mr. Haze was thankful that after hard work he has received 
an answer to his question. He would say that Mr. Garrison's 
definition w^as totally unsatisfactory and infinitely untrue. 
(Laughter.) His (Haze's) definition of " human redemption" 
was, " man's redemption from corruption " 

The Chairman — Do you say, Mr. Haze, that Mr. Garri- 
son has told you a lie 1 

Mr. Haze — I say that I did not receive it as a true defi- 
nition. 

The Chairman — You did not ask him to give you a true 
definition, but simply to say what he (Mr. G.) meant by the 
use of the words " human redemption." (Laughter.) 

Mr. Garrison — I never wish to waste time on persons who 
wish take a man in his words — who pay attention to mere 
verbal criticism. (Applause.) 

Rev. George Storrs offered the following resolution : 

Resolved — That the Scriptures are in harmony, both in precept and 
doctrine, with the great facts of history, and with the physical, moral, 
and social nature of man, and, so far as they have been permitted to 
exercise their legitimate influence, have elevated, purified, and enno- 
bled man morally, socially, and politically. 

The Convention then adjourned to half-past two o'clock p.m. 



HARTFORD BIBLE C N VE N T I IT. 205 



THIRD DAY-AFTERNOON SESSION. 

Saturday J June Ath. 

The Convention having been called to order at half-past two 
o'clock P.M. by Mr. Barker — 

Rev. George Stores, of New York, said : The great 
theme before this Convention is the trial of the Bible. It is 
said that we come here and repeat over and over again things 
we have said before — that we manifestly come here with 
nothing to say. I ask if in this respect we have differed 
essentially from our friends on the opposite side of the ques- 
tion % We lalbored at the outset of this Convention to see if 
there was a law by which the Bible could be tried, and after 
laboring for nearly two days we consented, for the sake of 
having the argument go on, that the law adduced should be 
the law by which the Bible should be tried, and that law was 
stated to be natural religion, or the God of nature. By the 
religion of nature or the religion of the God of nature the 
Bible and the God of the Bible are to be tried. Then I en- 
deavored to show the congregation last evening that in this 
trial the God of the Bible suffered nothing in comparison with 
the God of nature, and if that was to be the rule by which the 
God of the Bible was to be tried, either the God of the Bible 
must go clear, or the God of nature was in the same condem- 
nation. My friend Mr. Wright has felt, I have no doubt, the 
force of that remark ; therefore he has labored very hard to 
acquit the God of nature, and to bring out fresh charges 
against the God of the Bible. The Bible, he says, represents 
God as ruling the world by arbitrary laws and penalties. He 
affirms that the God of nature does not rule the world by 
arbitrary laws and penalties. Am I right in saying that you 
affirm it *? 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mr. Wright — Yes, I do affirm it. 

Rev. Mr. Storrs — Sir, what law by which the God of na- 
ture rules the world does he ever change] What penalty 
that the God of nature has affixed to his laws does he ever 
alter ? If that is not arbitrary law — arbitrary penalty, I ask 
to know what is 1 One of the very charges which they bring 
against the God of the Bible is, that he does sometimes change 
his laws ; therefore the law, speaking in the most absolute 
sense, is not arbitrary, but it is subject to be changed by the 
Author of that law, while the God of nature is unchanged 
and unchangeable in his laws and in his penalties. 

Mr. Wright — I desire to say that I used the terms fixed 
laws and fixed penalties, and arbitrary laws and arbitrary 
penalties, as laws and penalties that are opposed to each 
other. 

Rev. Mr. Storrs — Fixed fast in fate? Then what are you 
but the mere machinery of the God of nature 1 But "the 
God of the Bible is a very cruel God." The God of the Bible 
is represented as " commanding parents to stone the child to 
death. Abraham is commanded to butcher his son ;" and, 
says my friend Wright, " I have been asked if I would do 
such a deed if God commanded it? No, I would not ; but I 
would cut the throat of such a God^ Well, I was a little sur- 
prised at that remark of my good friend Wright, because, 
formerly, when a follower of 'Jesus, he was a peace-man — a 
non-resistant. (Applause.) Formerly, if a man should take 
his child and dash out its brains before his eyes, he would 
not strike him to keep him from doing it ; but he has 
changed since he has become a worshiper of the God of na- 
ture, and is now a war-man to the knife. 

Mr. Wright — I wish ray friends to keep in mind, distinctly 
and emphatically, that by that form of speech I desired to 
show that I do not believe in the existence of any such being 
as a God who ever did command men to take the life of any 
human being. I do not believe that in cutting the tlu-oat of 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 207 

such a God, I would be cutting the throat of any thing more 
than a mere metaphorical God. (Applause.) 

Eev. Mr. Storus — I deny that the God of the Bible ever 
commanded Abraham to butcher his son. He told him, in- 
deed, to go and offer him up as a burnt-oifering ; but when 
Abraham took hold of the knife, God commanded him to 
stop. He had gone beyond what he told him to do. But my 
friend Wright will have to butcher his God, and cut his throat 
as sure as life ; because the God of nature has given the 
command to delicate mothers, and compelled them to butcher 
their own children, and eat them too. Is it, or is it not a fact 
that in sieges of cities, where they have been driven to despe- 
ration for the lack of food, mothers have killed their own 
children, and eaten them to preserve their own life % What 
was it that commanded them to this ? The God of nature ! 
(Applause.) The God of nature, when he saw that they were 
like to starve to death, commanded them to " butcher" their 
children, and they actually did butcher them. Has the God 
of the Bible done any thing worse than that? No, sir. The 
God of nature has shown himself to be altogether as guilty as 
the God of the Bible ; and if my friend Wright is true to his 
declaration, he will have to take his knife and cut the throat 
of his God of nature. " The God of nature," he says, "never 
did send earthquakes to kill men — earthquakes are natural 
omens." They are then the natural actions^ I suppose, of the 
God of nature. Are they % If it is not understood in this 
way, I confess myself incapable of telling how it is under- 
stood. 

Mr. Wright — My remark is, that earthquakes are the 
effects of natural causes. 

Eev. Mr. Storrs — Who constituted those natural causes? 
(Applause.) The God of nature, I suppose. (Applause.) 
Does his God escape 1 " The God of nature in these natural 
causes did not kill these inhabitants in these cities ; oh no — 
they only put themselves right across where his car came !" 



208 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

But, sir, the God of nature drove his car right through their 
cities, and never gave them the least notice that he was com- 
ing. Surely that was almost as bad as going into the draw 
at Norwalk. (Laughter.) This God of nature having estab 
lished in his works natural causes which produce earthquakes 
that will swallow up cities if they happen to be planted in a 
certain place, if he was a good God, one would seem to think 
that he would have sent some notice to the children of men, 
and tell them not to build the city, for his car of an earth- 
quake was going to plow through there. But, sir, he leaves 
them in total ignorance, and allows them to plant their cities 
and go on to great happiness and prosperity ; and then, with- 
out a solitary warning, the God of nature drives his plow of 
destruction through their streets. 

But our friend Wright is very accommodating to the God 
of nature. If he were half as accommodating to the God of 
the Bible, he would not find so much difficulty. I should like 
to know what can be found in that manifestation of the God 
of nature that goes to prove his goodness. Can the God of 
nature speak to men really in any way possible ? If he can, 
why did he not give them some notice that he was going to 
destroy such a section of country, and that therefore they 
must move away from it, else he should destroy their lives ? 
How good he must be to destroy all their labors, and destroy 
their families ! " But the man would not have been hurt 
when the lightning fell from heaven, if he had not been in the 
way of it." Indeed he would not ! But did the God of na- 
ture tell him, when he was walking along; that he was going 
to get in the way below ? Did he not suffer him to go on, 
and dash him to death in a moment ] 

Now, suppose we should make such a defense of the God 
of the Bible. The God of the Bible, when he divided the 
earth among the children of men, divided a certain portion to . 
the children of Israel. He determined to establish that people ' 
in that land ; but here is another class of men that come ^ 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 209 

along, and plant themselves down in the land of Canaan, to 
possess the land that God had designed for a particular people. 
Instead of keeping on their own inheritance, they plant them- 
selves there in that land. The time comes when the God of 
the Bible is determined to put his people in possession of the 
land which he reserved for them at the creation. 

Now, sir, what does he do 1 Why, it is true he does not 
send an earthquake through the land, and take them all by 
surprise. Did he give them no notice of what he is going to 
do 1 At first, he waited until their corruption was such, in 
wickedness, that they were no longer .to be endured. He had 
previously informed Abraham (see Gen. xv. 16) that the rea- 
son why he would not at an earlier period cut off the intrud- 
ers in Canaan was, that " their iniquity was not yet full." 
But when it was full, and God's purpose to put Abraham's 
seed in possession of the long-promised land was now to be 
accomplished, he does not take them by surprise ; he gives 
them forty years' notice that he is going to dispossess them. 
And during that forty years he performs certain miracles or 
actions which were designed to convey to the inhabitants of 
the land the fact, that the God of the Bible was determined to 
bring a people in there, to whom that land belonged. He gave 
them timely notice of it ; and they who were believing saved 
their lives, as Rahab and her family. But all did not believe. 
Suppose, then, that he commissioned His people to destroy 
that people out of the land, has he done any thing worse than 
the God of nature, who destroyed the cities we spoke of? The 
question is not whether we can defend the God of the Bible, 
but whether he can be defended in view of the law by which 
he is to be tried. We might make the same remark in regard 
to pestilence. 

Our friend Wright told us that this, too, was a natural 
affair ; but suppose it is a natural affair — suppose it is in the 
course of nature, I ask again, who controls that course of 
nature 1 Is it the God of nature ? and if so, I ask if the God 



210 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

of nature is not chargeable with this terrible crime of sweep- 
ing millions of the human race away by the most desolating 
pestilence ? 

Just here, at this point, I beg leave to be permitted to read 
a little from some eminent men on the other side of the ques- 
tion. The names of Hume and Bolingbroke are well known 
by my friends on the opposite side of the question. Here let 
me say, that I do not despise any man for being a Deist. I do 
not use the term Deist ever reproachfully. It is simply one 
who rejects what we denominate revelation. He believes in 
God, and revelations of the God of nature. I can not wonder 
that there are so many Deists in the world, when they suppose 
that the God of the Bible will do certain things which are at- 
tributed to him. I wonder that the whole world are not Deists 
under the theology in which we have been trained. (Hear, 
hear.) But if we have the time, we will show that these most 
objectionable doctrines, which have led so many into the rejec- 
tion of revelation, have no foundation in the Bible. [The 
speaker read from Mr. Hume's " Essay on Providence and the 
Future State," as found in " Dr. M'Culloh's Analytical Inves- 
tigations concerning the Credibility of the Scriptures," vol. i., 
p. 97.] 

"Allowing the gods to be the authors of the existence or 
order of the universe, it follows that they possess that precise 
degree of poiver, intelligence, and benevolence which appears in 
their workmanshi}^ ; but nothing further can be proved, except 
we call in the assistance of exaggeration and flattery, to sup- 
ply the defects of argument and reasoning. So far as the 
traces of any attributes at present appear, so far we conclude 
that these attributes exist. The supposition of further attri- 
butes is mere hypothesis ; much more the supposition that, in 
distant regions of space, or periods of time, there has been or 
will be a more magnificent display of those attributes, and a 
scheme of administration more suitable to such imaginary 



HAKTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 211 

Last night we were told to remember that the Bible says 
yea, and the Bible says naij. Now Mr. Hume, who is a Deist, 
says yea, and then the Deist here says nay ; then their theol- 
ogy may be called in question as well as ours. [Mr. Wright 
— To be sure.] And who shall decide? That is the question 
exactly. (Hear, hear.) 

Again, Mr. Hume says : " Tlie great source of our mistake 
in this subject, and of the unbounded license of conjecture which 
we indulge, is, that we tacitly considei' ourselves as in the ijlace 
of the Supreme Being, and conclude that he toill, on every oc- 
casion, observe the same conduct which we ourselves, in his sit- 
tiation, would have embraced as reasonable and eligible. But 
besides that, the ordinary course of nature may convince us that 
almost every thing is regulated by principles and maxims very 
different from ours ; besides this, I say, it must evidently ap- 
pear contrary to all rules of analogy, to reason from intentions 
and projects of man to those of a being so different, and so much 
superior. In human nature there is a certain experienced co- 
herence of designs and inclinations, so that, when from any 
fact we have discovered one intention of any man, it may often 
be reasonable from experience to infer another, and draw a 
long chain of conclusions concerning his past or future conduct. 
But this method of reasoning can never have place with regard 
to a being so remote and incomprehensible (as God), who bears 
much less analogy to any other being in the universe than the 
sun to a waxen taper, and who discovers himself only by some 
faint traces or outlines, beyond which we have no authority to 
ascribe to him any attribute or perfection." 

Lord Bolingbroke, in his Works, vol. iv., pp. 87, 88, says : 
" We are made able to arrive, by a proper exercise of our 
mental faculties, from a knowledge of God's works, to a knowl- 
edge of his existence, and of that infinite power and wisdom 
(intelligence) which are demonstrated to us in them. Our 
knowledge concerning God goes no further." Do you hear 
them say, " Hear, hear f (Applause.) Lord B. continues — 



212 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

"We are in absolute ignorance of the real essence and in- 
ward constitution of every sensible object. How much less 
reason is there to expect any knowledge of the manner of the 
being, nature, and essence of the invisible God, or of his physic- 
al and moral attributes, beyond what his works, the effects of his 
nature and attributes, communicate to us ? This degree, this 
sufficient degree of knowledge concerning God, is a fixed point, 
on one side of which lies Atheism, and metaphysical and theo- 
logical blasphemy too often on the other." 

Now I ask the congregation who have heard this morning, 
whether one Deist does not say yea, and the other nay — whether 
the God of nature is not as much at variance with himself as 
the God of the Bible. 

There is one other point that I shall notice in the remarks 
of my friend Wright this morning, particularly. lie tells us 
that Jesus was good — a good man. Thank him for that. He 
says that Jesus founded a sect. Any harm in that, friend 
Wright"? [Mr. Wright — Yes.] Very well, how did he found 
it ? In any other way than you are founding a sect now ? 
[Mr. Wright— Yes.] No. Well, but what of thati Was 
the sect good at the outset? Yes; my friend Wright ac- 
knowledged that the persons concerned in it, at the outset, 
were good men. [Mr. Wright — Yes.] I thank him. The 
men that were first concerned in founding this sect were good 
men, true men, faithful men, Christ-like men ; and they dem- 
onstrated their integrity to the truth, by contending for the 
truth even unto death, at the hazard of their lives. What 
then "? Since that period this sect have become corrupt, and 
done certain things injurious to society. I am rather glad my 
friend Wright said, that " those who assume to be this sect 
have had an injurious influence upon the world." Don't you 
say so, brother Wright 1 

Mr. Wright — Mr. Chairman, if it is proper to answer, I 
may answer ; but yes or no would not express what I should 
want to say. I meant this, that those who profess to be guided 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 213 

by the spirit of Jesus, but have no more affinity to that spirit 
than Satan has, have perpetrated the foulest crimes. I do not 
believe that a man under the guidance of the spirit that Jesus 
had would ever commit thse horrible sins. 

Rev. Mr. Storrs — He says these men do not belong to 
Jesus. What, then, have they to do in pouring contumely 
upon this sect, or the system Jesus introduced ? Why bring 
them to this stand, when he says himself that they have no 
affinity to Jesus ? He has given us the argument. He has 
told us that Jesus was good — that the men to whom he com- 
mitted this work were good and true men. He has now told 
us that those who assume to be of that class act just as con- 
trary to Jesus and his first ministers, as Satan does to God. 
I will use the expression for him although I do not know that 
he used it. 

Mr. Wright — I was certainly misunderstood. 1 wish to 
say this first. I believe the spirit of Jesus is the spirit 
of love. 1 believe Jesus was mistaken when he aimed to 
establish a sect — to organize a perpetual organization among 
men, called a church, in its external form, simply on the 
ground that the experience of the world demonstrates that 
when men attempt to organize the spirit of love, forgiveness, 
and goodness, and true principles into a corporate body, in 
church or state, the necessary result is, that that organization 
will fall into the hands of ambitious, avaricious, and wicked men, 
as it has done in the Christian world. I say the church organiza- 
tion does not represent the spirit of Jesus, and can not do it. 
It is a spirit that can live only in individual man, and not in an 
organization. It is an impossibility that an organized church of 
any kind can be a true representative of the spirit of Jesus ; 
but I can not stop here to say why it is so, but will just say 
that it is perfectly obvious that the spirit that can exist only 
in the single, individual heart of man, designed to govern the 
soul and life of the individual, can not be put into an organ- 
ization that has all its outward forms, creeds, and so. forth ; 



^14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

to be under the guidance of certain persons called priests. I 
am my own church, and every man and woman should be the 
same. 

William Lloyd Garrison — What if it be true that Jesus 
did establish a sect, or whether it be evil or not evil? I ask 
if we came here to discuss this question, and whether we 
ought not to keep a little more strictly as to the question of 
the inspiration of the Bible. I admit that friend Wright 
brought it in, but I do affirm that in his case it was not called 
for ; nor should we have much time occupied with it. 

Mr. Wright — I brought in that idea to show that the Bible, 
in representing Jesus as the founder of a sect, attributes error 
to Jesus — a mistake to Jesus of Nazareth. 

The Chairman — I think in the relationship in which Mr. 
Wright introduced the mention of Jesus, it was right. It 
shows that the Bible, having represented Jesus as a perfect 
man, represented him also to be an imperfect man. 

Rev. Mr. Storrs — If this be an extraneous matter (one 
says yea, and the other says nay), I am not to blame for its 
being introduced, and I am only striving to follow it. I will 
not now stop to investigate the fact whether Jesus did found 
a sect or not ; but if he did found one, I ask upon what prin- 
ciples he founded it 1 My friend Wright will not deny but 
that the principles were right. He says that he was a man. 
Very well ; suppose he was nothing but a man, then could 
he foresee that such glorious principles as he laid down would 
be corrupted and perverted, and entirely departed from, on the 
supposition that he founded a sect 1 

Now, sir, I ask again, what were the principles upon which 
he founded that sect ? " Ye know," said Jesus, to these very 
men who were to preach his truth, " Ye know that they which 
are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over 
them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 
But so it shall not be among you ; but whosoever will be great 
among you, let him be your servant or minister ;" that is, one 



HAETFOBD BIBLE CONVENTION. 215 

to minister to them — to do them that service which they might 
need for their welfare or happiness; but he charged them 
most solemnly that they should not exercise lordships over 
one another, and the Apostle Paul to the Gentiles comes for- 
ward, and in writing to the church at Corinth says : " Not for 
that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your 

joy-" 

Here, sir, are the principles of the founder — if you will 
have it so — of this sect ; and I ask, sir, if it is not clear and 
plain that the founder of this sect, if it be a sect, did clearly 
denounce and condemn the course which those who " assume" 
to be of this sect have pursued for centuries past? Why, 
then, sir, are we cited, I ask again, to the wickedness of those 
professing to be of this sect, " who say they are Jews (Chris- 
tians), but are not — but do lie?" Why are we cited to them 
as any reproach upon Christianity ? " If Jesus was a good 
man," say you, " he ought to have known just such rascality 
would have come up." Indeed ! but then you say that he was 
a man. I have answered my friend only on his own ground. 

Mr. DoRRANCE, of New Jersey, in the chair. 

Mr. Joseph Barker made the following remarks : It 
appears to me that the proper plan for the advocates of the 
common notion respecting the Bible in this Convention to have 
pursued would have been to have presented to the Convention 
a resolution affirming the truth and the divine authority of the 
Bible — its agreement with man's nature, and nature generally, 
and then to have proceeded to bring forward their arguments 
— leaving those arguments to be examined by those who dif- 
fered from them. This course, however, they have not pur- 
sued. They have affirmed nothing. They have attempted to 
prove nothing. Those who took the negative have been so 
situated as to be obliged to assume the affirmative. In conse- 
quence of this the discussion has not been so regular, and may 



215 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

not have been so interesting as it might have been. If our 
friends on the opposite side of the question had helped their 
memory by taking notes, and had taken care not to let our 
arguments slip by, the evil, if not prevented, would have been 
reduced to the smallest point. But they have not done so. 
Our opponents have proved that they possess, to a remarkable 
extent, the power of forgetfulness, the faculty of overlooking, 
or letting slip by unnoticed, our arguments. I may say, with- 
out exceeding the truth, that ninety-nine out of a hundred of 
our arguments have been left entirely untouched. An answer 
made incidentally by our friend H. C. Wright to one of their 
queries has been the great thing on which they have harped. 
Our remarks have scarcely been once referred to, and the im- 
pression made on the minds of the audience is, and ought to be, 
that they are allowed to pass thus unnoticed, because our op- 
ponents feel that they are not to be grappled with. (Hear, 
hear.) Besides, our opponents, in reality, are taking our 
side. It is plain that if Mr. Storrs succeeds in establishing the 
position he has been endeavoring to establish, he will prove the 
Bible to be false. He has been endeavoring to prove that the 
God of Nature is outrageously cruel. Does he not see that if 
he had succeeded in proving it, he would have proved the Bible 
to be untrue ; for the Bible says that the God of Nature is 
good — good to all — good to man — good to every living thing 
— filling the mouth of every living thing with good. It de- 
clares that the earth is full of his goodness. Either, therefore, 
Mr. Storrs' assertion respecting the God of Nature is false, or 
the Bible is false. If the believers in the Bible will really say 
to the Atheist that the true, and only true, idea of God is that 
of a being infinite in power, infinite in wisdom, who knows 
what is best to be done ; and infinite in goodness, and always 
disposed to do the best he can, and perfectly free and inde- 
pendent in will — if they will grant that this is their only true 
idea of God, the Atheist has them as sure as death. (Applause 
and hisses.) A God infinitely good would not allow any 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 217 

misery, if he could help it. An almighty God could help it, 
if perfectly free ; and if there be misery in the world it is 
demonstrated beyond all question that there is no such God. 
There is, there can be, no Almighty God who possesses infinite 
love, wisdom, and a perfectly free and independent will. 
Our opponents must modify their ideas of God, or cease to 
complain of the spread of Atheism. They must admit that 
there are things conceivable which God can not do. 

I honestly declare to you that I believe in no such God as 
the one portrayed by orthodoxy, I believe in a God that does 
the best he can. I believe in a God that has nothing in him 
opposed to goodness ; but I believe that there is no God that 
can make and govern a world without allowing evil or imper- 
fection to exist. 

Mr. Storrs says that nature does not reveal God. Then the 
Bible is false ; for the Bible says that the heavens declare and 
reveal the glory of God ; that day and night, sun, moon, and 
stars, the earth and sea, every thing, in short, reveals Him. 
But Mr. Storrs says nature does not reveal the moral perfec- 
tions of God. 

We say, again, then, if that is so, the Bible is false ; for it 
says that " the invisible things of God'' — his attributes, without 
any exception — " from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made," even his 
eternal power and Godhead — that is, the Godhead generally, 
— the whole Godhead. The Bible plainly teaches that that 
which may be known of God is revealed to the Gentiles; 
that is, ail that can be known of God is thus revealed by 
nature. 

It was said by Mr. Storrs that Christ formed no sect, any 
more than we are forming one. Are we naming a number of 
principles and saying that " he that believeth not shall be 
damned" to hell, but that he that believeth shall be saved? 
Are we giving rules of ecclesiastical discipline, and saying how 
all my friends shall be governed, and the like 1 But we are 

10 



218 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

not talking about what Jesus did merely, but about what the 
Bible says. Now the Bible requires a church, and requires all 
Christians to belong to it. It requires rulers in the church, 
and commands all Christians to obey those rulers ; thus laying 
the foundation for priestly authority, blind faith, and spiritual 
servility, and all the crimes and horrors that flow from them. 

The fact of the Hindoo mother throwing her child into the 
Ganges was adduced as an evidence that natural religion 
teaches such things. Now will Mr. Turner say that because 
persons who have the Bible do things contrary to piety and 
virtue, that therefore the Bible commands those things ? Is he 
willing that we should charge it with commanding every foolish 
and wicked thing done by people who happen to have the 
Bible ? No such thing. He would say at once that a man 
may have a Bible, and not read it ; or he may read it, and not 
understand it ; or he may even understand it, and yet not like 
to obey it. And a man that was candid would acknowledge 
the same in respect to the laws of nature. A man may have 
the Bible of nature, and not read it; he may read it, and not 
perfectly understand it ; he may partially understand it, and 
not always obey it. Mr. Storrs knows this. 

The vast variety of opinions among men was mentioned by 
Mr. Storrs as a proof that there could be no such natural reve- 
lation as we speak of; but on the same grounds he might say 
that there was no revelation in the Bible, for where will he find 
a greater variety of opinions or less unanimity than among 
those who have the Bible and profess to receive it as their rule 
of faith and practice. Or where will he find blacker or more 
outrageous notions prevailing 1 

Mr. Storrs said that " we could not find out from nature 
whether there was one God or a million of gods." But the 
Bible teaches us that nature reveals but one God ; if, there- 
fore, his position be true, the Bible is false. 

Said he, " How do we know but that there may be a million 
gods." If there be a million, they are one in will and work. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 219 

They are all alike, they all take the same side, and we are as 
safe as if there were but one. What matters it how many 
gods there are, if they are all good 1 

" Can God be good and yet permit so much suffering in the 
world 1" Who will prove all that is called evil is evil 1 Who 
will prove that darkness is not as useful as light in a world 
like this 1 Who will prove that pain is not essential to life, 
and that it is a demonstration of the goodness of Ged, when 
thoroughly understood — as much a blessing as any pleasure we 
enjoy 1 

Mr. Storrs says : " Natural religion neither teaches God's 
character nor man's duty." Well, then, what kind of a God 
is the God of these men "? for more than nineteen twentieths 
of the world are left with nothing else but natural religion. 
Can God be aware that the Bible is so necessary to mankind, 
and yet leave so many of his children without it ? The first 
part of the Bible did not come into existence until some thou- 
sands of years after the world was created. It is not yet two 
thousand years since the better portions of the Bible came into 
existence. Even now, not one man in a hundred knows the 
Bible — nor more than one in twenty has ever seen one per- 
haps — and not more than one in a hundred has read it and 
understood it to any extent. There is only nature therefore to 
enable them to grope their way to Deity — to heaven. God 
can not think the Bible essential to human happiness, or, if he 
loves all mankind, he would take care that all mankind should 
have it. God has not so low an opinion of natural religion as 
Mr. Storrs ; else, if he loved mankind as the Bible represents, 
he would have given them something better. (Laughter.) . 

" But do we know that God has not a right to command 
one man to kill another ^" We answei', God can have no right 
to command us to do what our nature tells us it is wrong to 
do. God can not command things to act contrary to their 
nature. And it is contrary to man's nature to kill innocent, 
unoffending human beings. It may be disputed whether nature 



220 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

dictates the killing of men in self-defense ; but among unpre. 
judiced people it can hardly be disputed whether God can 
command men to kill thousands and tens of thousands of 
innocent and helpless women and children. The advocate of 
the Divine authority of the Bible must know that God has 
actually done this. 

"If the law of nature allows man to enslave lower animals, 
and to work them without wages, why may it not allow a man 
to enslave men, and take their services without wages ?" We 
answer, the law of nature does not allow us to work animals 
without wages. It requires us to look to the comforts of the 
creatures in our service. It prompts me to do the best I can 
for my cattle. If George Storrs does work his cattle without 
wages, he is a transgressor both of the law of nature and the 
Bible J for even the Bible says, " a merciful man is merciful to 
his beast." I give to my cattle the best wages that they can 
and are capable of receiving. I do the best for them I know. 
I do not ask God to do any better to me than I do to my cattle. 

"Man was merely an animal till developed by the moral 
law ; Adam was merely an animal, and could never have been 
any thing more than an animal, unless he had had this law to 
develop his moral nature." Then God was merely an animal 
originally, according to Scripture, for it says Adam was made 
in God's image. (Applause and laughter.) 

It has been frequently said, that the variety of opinions 
among those without the Bible is an evidence of the insuffici- 
ency of natural religion ; and I must again allude to this 
matter. Now the fact is, there are ten different doctrines 
among the Christians where there was one among the ancient 
Pagans, so that if the diversity of opinions among the 
ancient Pagans is an evidence of the insufficiency of natural 
religion, then the tenfold greater diversity among believers 
in the Bible will prove it to be tenfold worse than natural 
religion. 

Mr. Storrs said, that " we had tried to make the impression 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 221 

that the Bible sanctions American slavery." I believe not. 
But if the Bible sanctions slavery at all, it does, in effect, 
sanction it in any form. And it is certain that the slavery ol 
the Bible was bad enough ; for it recognizes man as property, 
to be left to the owners children, as an inheritance forever ; 
and it gives to the owner of the slave the right to whip him 
to death, provided he did it in such a way that the slave 
should linger a day or two after his scourging ; and the reason 
assigned why the owner was not to be punished in such a case, 
is simply, that " the slave is his money!''' If the Bible will al 
low the beginning of slavery, it will allow the end. American 
slavery was once not so bad as now. Slavery, in its mildest 
form, is so bad a thing, that if it is allowed to exist in a com- 
munity at all, it will soon spread out into frightful shapes, and 
even enslave the whole community. Slavery must either be 
put down entirely, or it will grow worse and worse, till it be- 
comes intolerable. You can not keep it in bounds. Either 
liberty must extinguish slavery, or slavery will extinguish 
liberty. (Applause.) 

When referring to the Bible teachings concerning the rela- 
tions of husband and wife, Mr. Storrs said that I told only 
half the truth concerning it. He said, the Bible commands 
husbands to love their wives as their own flesh, and, he asked, 
" what wife would not obey a man who is commanded to love 
her as he loves himself?" What does Mr. Storrs mean? 
Does he know what he is saying 1 / would not obey a man 
merely because he happened to be commanded to love me. 
The kindest person may command what it would be death to 
do. Love often does mischief when it thinks to do good. 
Even love itself would be no sufficient reason for obedience, 
miless joined with wisdom. It does not follow, therefore, that 
because a person loves us, we ought to obey him. Much less 
are we bound to obey a person merely because he is command- 
ed to love us. Although the Bible commands the husband to 
love his wife, it does not guarantee that he shall love her. 



222 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Nor does the Bible say that the woman was to obey her hus- 
band, because the husband was to love her — but because 
" man was not made for the woman, but the woman for the 
man" — one of the darkest reasons that could be assigned even 
by a half-savage man. 

Mr. Storrs says, " The Bible is a faithful history of trans- 
actions connected with revelation, and its tiTith is to be estab- 
lished by the credibility of the witnesses for it." But where 
are those credible witnesses? We know of none. The testi- 
mony of the old Jews and priests is not credible. Even the 
testimony of the apostles is not to be relied on in this mat- 
ter, supposing them even to have given any testimony on the 
subject. And it is certain that the testimony of those who 
succeeded them is not to be relied on. To prove that the tes- 
timony of the old Jewish priests is not credible, I will give you 
Jeremiah's testimony respecting them. When speaking of 
the priests of his time, he says, " From the least of them, even 
unto the greatest of them, every one is given to covetousness ; 
and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth 
falsely." To what particular priest did he refer? Strange 
enough, he lived in the time of the priest Hilkiah, who pro- 
fessed to find the book of the law of the land, in the days of 
Josiah. You may find the story in 2 Kings xxii. 

And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have 
found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave 
the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe shewed 
the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And 
Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king 
had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 
And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of 
Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and 
Asahiah, a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, inquire of the Lord for 
me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this 
book that is found ; for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled 
against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of 
this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. 
So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 223 

Asahiah, -went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallumthe son 
of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe ; (now she dwelt 
in Jerusalem in the college ;) and they communed with her. — 2 Kings 
xxii. 8, 10-14. 

In those days there appears to have been a dispute between 
the priests and the prophets with respect to the origin and ob- 
ligation of sacrifices. The priests, who lived by the sacrificial 
system, contended that sacrifices were of divine appointment ; 
the prophets contended that they were not. 

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Put your burnt-oflfer- 
ings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your 
fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the 
land of Egypt, concerning burnt- offerings or sacrifices : but this thing 
commanded I them, saying. Obey my Yoice, and I will be your God, 
and ye shall be my people : and walk ye in all the ways that I have 
commanded you, that it may be well unto you. — Jer. vii. 21-23, 

Such was the language of the prophet. Just at this moment 
Hilkiah declares that he has found a book that will settle the 
question, the book of the law of the land. Doubts arise as to 
the genuineness of the book ; but the question is settled by 
reference to a woman named Huldah, whose answer, in truth, 
is too vague to settle any thing with rational and candid people. 
Those who can believe that God once gave a book of laws to 
the Jews — that this book was lost, that after a length of time 
this book was again found by the chief priest, etc., must have 
their belief. The impression the story makes on my mind is, 
that the book was forged by Hilkiah, and imposed upon the 
credulous king and people for the purpose of supporting the 
system of sacrifice and priestly craft assailed by the reforma- 
tory prophets of the day. This view will seem natural to those 
acquainted with priestly history. Priests have practiced such 
frauds in all ages. The forgery of sacred books is quite in their 
way. And these are the witnesses on whose testimony we 
are to believe in the supernatural origin of the Books of Moses, 
as they are called. The persons on whose testimony we are 
called upon to believe in the Divine authority of other portions 



^24 PROCEEDINGS OP THE 

of the Bible, are not a whit more trustworthy than thte high-priest 
HiJkiah. I wish I could dwell on this part of the subject. It 
would unfold a world of fraud and villainy utterly inconceiv- 
able by persons ignorant of priestly history. Little do people 
know on what uncertain foundation their faith in the Divine 
authority of the Bible rests. The witnesses referred to by Mr. 
Storrs were, according to the Bible itself, among the most 
covetous of their race, and were liars to a man. 

Mr. Storrs said that the Jewish priests must have been un- 
selfish men, or else they would not have deprived themselves 
of a share of the land. We, however, think differently. The 
priests could afford to do without land so long as they could 
secure the best share of its produce without the toil and trouble 
of cultivating it. And that they did secure to themselves the 
best portion of the produce of the land is evident from the 
Book of the Law. Hear what Dr. Nelson says on this sub- 
ject : 

" I have often wondered that any thing ever prevailed on 
the Jews to receive that law. The law of Moses called for 
tithing three several times. If we compute the offerings and 
sacrifices, gifts and multiplied requirements, we find that it 
must have reached near about Jive tenths^ or one half of the 
whole income. Surely if ever a people were to work and have 
nothing, to toil and give it all away, here is the instance. I 
have often wondered that all the promises or threatenings they 
heard, that all the wonders they saw, etc., ever made a nation 
agree to yeceive a code of rules which called for, seemingly, 
almost all the property they could possibly possess." 

Yet this is the law that proves, in Mr. Storrs' opinion, the 
disinterestedness of the priests — a law which gives nearly all 
the property of the nation into their hands, and leaves them to 
enjoy it in comparative idleness ! 

Mr. Storrs talks about the veracity of the New Testament 
witnesses — the truthfulness of the apostles, etc. Now, if the 
Bible be true, one of the boldest and most forward of the 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 225 

apostles denied his Master; and even after he got filled with the 
Holy Ghost, he dissembled so shamefully that Paul had to 
withstand him to his face. And observe, he dissembled, not 
to escape some fearful persecution, but simply to prevent him- 
self from losing the friendship of some that differed from him 
about the obligation of the Jewish law. If Peter, who, accord- 
ing to the Bible, was an eyewitness of the works of Christ, 
and had received the gift of the Holy Ghost, could thus dis- 
semble or lie, why might not Paul, who was not an eyewitness, 
but one who received the Gospel on hearsay or by visions? 
We know what both hearsay and visions often are. 

But I defy any man to prove that any apostle ever wrote a 
line of any of the gospels now in existence. I defy any man 
to prove that any one of the gospels were written within a 
hundred years after the appearance of Christ on earth. Our 
own conviction is, that all the gospels go under false names. 
It was laid down in those early times as a principle, that it was 
a good thing to lie for the cause of God and the good of souls. 
And the early Christians did lie to a most appalling extent. 
They did especially forge lies with respect to sacred books. 
If you will read Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, you will find 
that it was a regular business in those early ages to make 
epistles, gospels, and acts of the apostles, and other works of 
this description, and give to them the names of celebrated per- 
sons. He will tell you, in fact, that they not only laid it down 
as a principle that it was good to lie for the truth, but that they 
acted upon the principle with the most unconscionable regard- 
lessness of restraint. And priests have lied for the Bible from 
that day till now. The Roman Catholic priests will tell you 
what cheats the Protestant ministers are. and the Protestant 
clergy will tell you what cheats the Roman Catholic priests 
are. The priests of all the sects have practiced fraud. The 
Lutherans publish a Bible as Luther's Bible, containing the 
book of Revelations, though they know that Luther rejected 
that book and refused it a place in his version of the Bible, 

10* 



226 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE 

The Church of England priests lie and perjure themselves 
without end. The Methodist preachers have mutilated and 
corrupted John Wesley's writings. Even the Quakers have 
altered the 'writings of George Fox. They all use fraud. 
They maintain their influence by fraud. Eraud is their life. 
(Applause and hisses.) 

I defy all the priests in America to convict me of the slightest 
mis-statement or exaggeration in my charges against the priest- 
hood of the day ; I would, if I had time, prove them all by 
quotations and facts which would astound you all, and make 
the blood of those who are not acquainted with the doings of 
councils, synods, convocations, and Methodist conferences chill, 
and make your flesh creep on your bones. I will give you an 
example of the falsehoods published by those men. [As the 
speaker was about to read from Dr. Nelson's work, Mr. Pills- 
bury rose and said that he thought it would be well to remind 
the audience that Dr. Nelson's work was an orthodox text- 
book, and then perhaps the geese and goslings would not hiss 
so much.] 

Dr. Nelson's work on the " Cause and Cure of Infidelity" has 
been adopted and published by the American Tract Society, 
so that all the leading priesthoods of America have made 
themselves answerable for its statements. They have put 
them forth as their own. Yet this book contains the most 
disgraceful and outrageous falsehoods. It abounds with them. 
I will give an instance, which you may all see for yourselves 
to be a gross, a palpable, and willful falsehood. It is on pages 
228 and 229. Dr. Nelson says he was once an infidel, and 
was reading the works of Voltaire to confirm him in his in- 
fidelity. He says he found every article to be a falsehood, a 
willful falsehood. Yet, strange to say, he gives from Voltaire, 
as an example, an article that is perfectly true, and uses, in 
order to make it look false, a most impudent and daring willful 
falsehood himself. You shall hear his own words : 

" I read," says Nelson, " from the pen of this prince of 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 227 

philosophers, the following declaration : Men saw Isaiah walk- 
ing stark naked in Jerusalem, in order to show that the king 
of Assyria would bring a crowd of captives out of Egypt and 
Ethiopia, who would not have any thing to cover their naked 
ness. Is it possible that a man could walk stark naked through 
the streets of Jerusalem without being punished by the civil 
power 1" 

Now hear what Dr. Nelson says about this paragraph of 
Voltaire's. He says : " What impression must this make on 
one who had opened the book in search of support in his sys- 
tem of infidelity ? I had read the Bible, and heard it read often 
(through necessity), when I was young. I knew that many 
who read this [paragraph of Voltaire's] would think it true, 
but / knew it to be false^ and I knew that the author must 
have known its untruth. He knew that the man without 
arms [weapons of war~\ was, and is called, naked, in a military 
sense." 

Thus speaks Dr. Nelson. We shall soon see who is the 
willful liar. Does the word naked, in the passage referred to 
by Voltaire, mean without arms — without weapons ? And did 
Voltaire know that that was its meaning. Let us read the 
passage. Where is it ? Dr. Nelson does not quote the pas- 
sage. He does not even tell us the chapter and verse, nor 
even the book where the passage is to be found. This looks 
suspicious. It seems as if he did not wish us to find the pas- 
sage ; as if he were afraid of us examining it. He had need 
to be afraid. But we have found the passage notwithstanding. 
It is in Isaiah, twentieth chapter. I will read it. The question 
is, does the passage speak of real nakedness, or of the want of 
weapons of war. Dr. Nelson says it refers to want of weapons, 
and that Voltaire knew it did. Then hear it : 

" In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, and fought against it, 
and took it, the Lord spake by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying : Go and 
loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy 
foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot." 



228 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

" Loose the sackcloth^'' mark you j not your sword and hel 
met ; not your bow and spear. 

" And the Lord said : Like as my servant Isaiah has walked naked 
and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia, 
so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the 
Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their 
buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." — Isa. xx. 1-4. 

And this is the passage which Dr. Nelson says referred to 
the want of arms or weapons, and that Voltaire knew it did ; 
and that in representing it as referring to literal nakedness, 
Voltaire told a willful lie 1 Was ever a more barefaced, im- 
pudent, outrageous falsehood uttered 1 And this is the way 
the priesthoods of the day belie the men who differ from them ! 
And this is the M'ay they defend the Divinity of the Bible ! 
You may judge what their testimony is worth. And this is the 
way in which the advocates of the Bible, and the priesthoods 
generally, attempt to mislead men. No faith is to be placed 
in any of them. The words of Jeremiah are true of them to 
this hour. 

" Every one is given to covetousness— every one dealeth falsely." — 
Jer. vi. 13. 

I will prove to you that the leaders of all the sects, and the 
most popular ministers in defense of the Divinity of the Bible, 
have dealt thus falsely. Give me time, and I will make the 
matter plain as the light. 

I will prove that the work of Hartwell Home, a work in high 
repute on both sides of the Atlantic, abounds in falsehoods of 
the grossest character, and in misrepresentations of the most 
criminal description. I will prove to you that there is not a 
work MTitten by an orthodox writer in behalf of the common 
notions of the Bible, which does not systematically misrepre- 
sent the sentiments and character of those who oppose those 
notions. 

The frauds of orthodox writers are truly appalling. I will 
prove to you that the evidences of Divine revelation are no 



HAKTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 229 

evidences — that they are fabrics of ignorance, credulity, and 
deceit — that the external and internal evidences of the Divine 
origin of the Bible will not bear examination. I will prov§ 
to you that the prophecies to which reference is made in 
support of the notion of the Divine origin of the Bible do 
frequently prove just the contrary. I will prove to you that 
from the beginning to the end the Bible has not a page which 
does not give decisive evidence that it is the work of men, and 
that the very best portions of the Bible are mixed with the 
most mischievous of all theological and moral dogmas. I vouch 
for the truth of every charge I have made ; and I also aver that 
the charges I have made are not one twentieth of the charges 
that I am prepared to make and establish. But my time is up. 

[It was here voted that Mr. Barker should continue his re- 
marks till he had finished his speech. He accordingly pro- 
ceeded. The following is the substance of what he said.] 

We have contradictory accounts of creation in the Bible : 
one representing the inferior creatures as being made before 
man ; and the other representing man as being made before 
the inferior creatures. We have contradictory accounts of the 
flood of Noah. We have contradictory accounts of Abraham, 
utterly irreconcilable with each other. One represents him as 
too old to have a child without a miracle, before Isaac was 
born. Paul speaks of him as being as good as dead before the 
birth of Isaac. Another account represents him after the death 
of Sarah, when fifty years older, as marrying Keturah, and 
having quite a number of children by her, without any miracle 
at all. See Genesis xxv. 1-6. 

We have contradictory accounts of wars spoken of h. the 
books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles — contradictory in 
respect to the numbers that went out to war, the numbers 
slain, and with respect to the particular events that took place 
in connectipn with the wars. We have contradictory accounts 



230 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

respecting the chieftains engaged in those wars. We have con- 
tradictory accounts with respect to the simplest of all things 
— as to who killed Goliah; one account declaring that David 
killed him, and another account stating that Elhanan slew him. 
2 Sam. xxi. 19. In this latter passage the translators have put 
in " the brother of'' to hide the contradiction. There are hun- 
dreds of historical contradictions in the Old and New Testa- 
ments, 

Yes, there are contradictions in the New Testament. We 
have contradictory Christs and contradictory gospels. One 
Christ we have in the Gospel of John, and another perfectly 
distinct in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We 
have contradictory accounts of Christ's genealogy, and both 
genealogies differ from the corresponding genealogies given in 
the Old Testament. We have two different accounts of his 
doctrine — one representing Christ as warning people to beware 
of the teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees, and another rep- 
resenting him as commanding the people to hearken to their 
teachings, and do what they bid them. One represents him as 
doing away with the law of Moses, and another represents him 
as establishing it. We have contradictory accounts respecting 
Christ's death ; and contradictory accounts respecting his 
resurrection. We have contradictory accounts respecting 
Judas. One says that he hanged himself, and another says he 
bought a field and then fell down, and, bursting in sunder, his 
bowels gushed out. 

We have contradictory doctrines in the Epistles and the 
Gospels ; and the Acts of the Apostles contradicts the Gospels. 

We have contradictory representations of God in the Bible. 
Some passages represent Him as being like a man, and others 
as being a spirit, and not like a man. Some passages tell 
us that he is all-mighty, and others represent him as not being 
able to vanquish certain armies because they had chariots of 
iron. He is sometimes represented as all- wise, and then again 
as not knowing what people think, or what theii* intentions 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 231 

are, until he has tried them. No man hath seen God at any- 
time, says one. He is spoken of as the Being whom no man 
hath seen or can see. God is sometimes said to be invisible, 
and at other times it is said that he has been seen many times 
by various persons. Some passages say that no man can see 
God's face and live ; while others say that men have, seen him 
face to face and yet lived. One passage represents Moses as 
not getting a view of God's face, yet as having an opportunity 
to observe his back parts. Some passages say that God is no 
respecter of persons ; while in others he is represented as hating 
some poor creatures and loving others before they were born. 
Some passages say that God is love, others say that he is a 
consuming fire, furious in his wrath, terribly jealous, and 
represent him as destroying whatever comes in his way unless 
he meets with some one to reason or persuade him into self- 
control. Some passages say that he is unchangeable ; others 
represent him as frequently repenting. Some represent him 
as threatening ruin to a city, and then repenting of it, falsifying 
the prediction of his prophet, and vexing the prophet, because 
he would not kill the people, and thus verify his word. Some 
passages represent him as never being weary ; and others 
represent him as being weary, and resting to take his breath. 
Some passages represent God as strictly just ; while others 
represent him as punishing the innocent with the guilty. 

Mr. Storrs said that God did not require Abraham to kill his 
son. One thing is certain : he required him to offer up his son 
as a burnt-offering, which would require him to offer him up 
dead, and therefore to kill him first, or to offer him up alive, 
and thus burn him to death. Some passages tell us that God 
can not lie ; while others represent him as employing lying 
spirits, and as sending deceivers, if not for the deception, for the 
trial of his own people. One passage speaks of him as sending 
men strong delusions of the devil, that they may believe a lie. 
Some passages say that God commands circumcision ; and 
others say that he considers it just nothing. Some passages 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

say that he requires sacrifices ; and others say that he has no 
pleasure in them, and that he did not require them. Some 
represent him as being everywhere ; and others, as living up 
in one place, and coming down when he has business to trans- 
act, or special information to look for in this lower world. 
Some passages represent him as forgiving sin ; and others as 
acting on the principle of letting every man reap what he sows. 
One says that he is immortal ; another that he once laid down 
his life. True, as to the genuineness of some passages which 
speak of God's dying or shedding his blood there is some dis- 
pute ; but we have to do with the Bible as read by the com- 
mon people. When the original is brought forward, we shall 
prove that to be worse than the translation in many cases. 
To proceed. Some passages speak of God as one ; yet others 
speak of him as several. One says God tempteth no man ; 
another says he tempted Abraham, and told him to offer his 
son as a burnt-offering. And these are not all the contradic- 
tory representations of God to be found in the Bible. 

The Bible has contradictions of Nature. It contradicts geol- 
ogy. Some theologians of late have been compelled to study 
geology, and they have discovered that geology in some twenty- 
six particulars contradicts the Bible as generally understood till 
this time. True, Professor Hitchcock says that all that is 
necessary to reconcile geology and Genesis is to interpret 
Genesis correctly ; but, at the same time, he requires you to 
put into the words a ^ense quite different from that which they 
express. He says, in short, that God uses language that is 
not scientifically true — that he speaks of things in the errone- 
ous language of the ignorant fathers of our race ; which is, of 
course, to say, that he uses language which is false. The Bible 
contradicts astronomy, meteorology, and zoology, or natural 
history. The Bible also gives us false chronology and false 
physiology, and false psychology. It contradicts the estab- 
lished principles of dietetics. It has contradictions with 
respect to the conduct of rulers — with respect to poverty, 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 233 

wealth, honor, reproach, persecution, and quiet lives. In one 
case it says, " Blessed are the poor ;" and in another case it 
represents God as promising great wealth as a blessing. In 
some cases it speaks of a good name as a sweet thing ; and in 
others it represents reproach and persecution as desirable. It 
has three doctrines on the subject of wealth and poverty. At 
one time it represents wealth as a blessing, and at another time 
it represents wealth as a great danger, and poverty as a great 
blessing ; and in another place it says, " Give me neither 
poverty nor riches, but feed me with food convenient for me ; 
for I have found that poverty tempts men to steal, and riches 
causes them to deny God." I think the third doctrine is the 
truest. 

The persecuted are at times pronounced the blessed ones ; 
and yet they are commanded to pray for kings, and for all in 
authority, that they may not be persecuted, but lead peaceful 
and quiet lives. Those that wrote the latter had begun to enjoy 
their salaries, and they wanted the kings to let them alone, 
that they might enjoy their income in quiet. One passage rep- 
resents that circumcision is required ; and another teaches that 
if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. One 
requires retaliation, and another says that this is not the correct 
principle — that you must not resist nor retaliate evil. The 
Bible contradicts itself on the subject of punishment — in some 
cases requiring most savage, brutal, bloody punishments ; while 
on other occasions it requires you not to judge or punish at allj 
but to forgive all that offend you, even to seventy times seven, 
even as you wish to be forgiven yourself. In one case you are 
required not to be angry at all ; while in another you are per- 
mitted to be angry, though required not to be angry longer 
than till sundown (Laughter) ; yet some passages say that God 
is angry every day with some people. Some passages tell 
you that you must offer animals in sacrifice; and others tell 
you that you must do no such thing. Some portions of the 
Bible require temple-worship ; if you live three hundred miles 



234 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

off you must go to the temple three times a year ; and yet 
other portions tell you that you are neither to worship God in 
this or that place, but in spirit and in truth. 

Some passages represent the ordinances of sacrifices as com 
ing from God ; while others declare that God never instituted 
them, nor wished for them — that he does not like them now, 
and that all that he wishes of men is that they should do justly, 
love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. Some passages 
say that you must obey God rather than men ; while others 
say that you must obey rulers, submit yourselves to every 
ordinance of man, and that for the Lord's sake ; and one tells 
you that if you resist them you will receive damnation. 

Some passages forbid murder — others command it. Some 
forbid theft — others enjoin it. Some forbid frauds and lies — 
others represent God as setting the example of both, and as 
specially blessing people who use them. Some speak of mar- 
riage in one light, and others in another light. One passage 
says that it is honorable — another says you had better not 
marry if you can do without ; though it adds, " it is better to 

marry than to ." Kead the passage yourselves. It might 

not be considered proper to quote it here. Mr. Wright's ex- 
planation of the passage, " he that looketh upon a woman," etc., 
seems to me to be true. Some passages manifestly favor 
celibacy. 

The Bible contains contradictory laws on the subject of 
divorce, on the rights and duties of women, and on the subject 
of polygamy. Some passages represent God as forbidding 
polygamy, and others represent him as giving more wives to 
one who had already a great number. We have contradictory 
doctrines in the Bible on the subject of adultery, of fornication, 
of concubinage, and of incest. We find contradictory doctrines 
concerning works and faith, some passages declaring that we 
are justified by faith without works ; and others that we are 
justified by works and not by faith only. We find contradic- 
tory accounts of the Sabbath — some passages requiring it to 



« 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 235 

be kept holy ; and others saying that those who observe holy- 
days and Sabbaths are fallen from grace. 

The Bible contains contradictory directions on oaths. One 
place says swear — another swear not at all. It contains con- 
tradictory rules about meats, sometimes forbidding what at 
other times it allows. 

Again, the Bible contains bad morality. It contains bad 
morality with respect to parents and children — authorizing 
parents to beat their children unmercifully, and even to have 
them stoned to death in some cases. The doctrine of Solomon, 
the .wise man of the Bible, is so bad, that if he had been the 
most foolish man on earth he could hardly have taught a worse 
doctrine. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, he 
says, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him, 
though he before said that if you bray a fool in a mortar his 
foolishness will not depart from him. Correct thy son while 
there is hope, says the Bible, and let not thy soul spare for his 
crying. I bear about me the marks of blows, and the effects 
of the torments to which I was subjected by my father, to this 
day, who was taught by the Bible not to spare the rod, lest he 
should spoil his child. Oh, the hell in which I spent my youth 
in consequence of those inhuman proverbs! A curse on that 
wisest of men and on his most foolish and cruel doctrine. I 
must ever feel coming from the depths of my heart a gush of 
mielancholy indignation when I think of the tortures that my 
poor father endured when he felt himself obliged to beat me, ' 
and when I remember the tortures I myself endured in conse- 
quence of his faith in that horrible doctrine. 

The Bible contains bad morality in reference to husbands 
and wives. It gives the husband authority to rule the wife ; and 
requires the wife to be subject unto her husband in all things. A 
most monstrous doctrine ! An intelligent woman obedient to 
a stupid, foolish man ! A virtuous woman obedient to a vicious, 
cruel man ! A woman tortured and murdered in spirit, obe- 
dient to the man who has tortured and destroyed her ! There 



23d PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

are no exceptions made. And there are no limitations to the 
subjection of woman. And all this simply because man was 
formed first, and then the woman ! It should be remembered 
that the hog and the ass were formed before man, and that 
man, therefore, according to this reasoning, should be subject 
to the hog and the ass. (Laughter and applause.) 

The Bible contains bad morality in reference to civil and 
political matters. It requires us to obey magistrates, to be 
subject to every ordinance of man. Here is the " Fugitive 
Slave Law,'' for instance, the most outrageous insult upon man 
—(cries of " Hear, hear." Applause and hisses) — the most 
heartless, infamous, inhuman, devilish act that ever came from 
the corrupted heart — yet we are required to obey it, or be 
damned ! So with the impious and bloody laws of the popedom, 
and the murderous laws of the tyrant aristocrats of Great Britain 
and Ireland. We must obey them all, or be damned. We must 
never resist the tyrants ! If rulers command us to rob or kill — 
to worship a piece of bread or a piece of gold — to say we believe 
what we know to be false, and to denounce as false what we know 
to be true — to kidnap the sons and daughters of our brethren, or 
capture the fugitive slave and return him to bondage — we must 
do it on pain of damnation. There is nothing so atrocious or 
infernal but rulers may command. There, for instance, is the 
Fugitive Slave Law of this country. Neither earth nor hell 
has any thing worse. Neither fallen man nor fabled devil can 
devise a law more villainous. Here, too, are all the enormities 
of our Southern code. You have here the consummation of 
all unjust, unrighteous, cruel, insolent, and outrageous acts of 
legislation, and you are bound, if the Bible is your rule, to obey 
them all. Your preachers know what they are doing when they 
teach from the pulpit that you must obey the laws of the land. 
And Daniel Webster and Moses Stuart knew what they were 
about when they said that you must obey the laws of the land 
or disobey the laws of God. The Bible, by commanding men 
to obey magistrates, makes the laws of the land into the laws of 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 237 

God. Then look at the barefaced falsehood by which this bad 
morality is enforced. The Bible says we are to be subject to 
rulers, because rulers are not a terror to good men's works, but 
to the evil. An astounding falsehood. It goes on : Do that 
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. Another 
monster falsehood. Here is William Lloyd Garrison, who has 
been engaged in a great, good work for twenty years, do they 
praise him? Have they not tried to be a terror to him? 
Have they not offered a sum of money for his head ? What 
say you of all the stir this government made, some time ago, 
to frighten people from disobeying the Fugitive Slave Law 1 
Were they, or were they not, a terror to good works 1 The 
rulers of Jesus' time were a terror to good works. They 
frightened Peter out of his senses, and made him deny his 
Master. Why, Paul himself once used the authority of the 
rulers of his day to frighten people from obeying Jesus, and 
murdered those who stood firm. Paul did not always praise 
the doers of good works. I do not believe that Paul wrote 
this — he could not. But here it is. It is part of the Bible. 
The passage says, that rulers are not a terror to good works, 
but to the evil ; while everywhere, and in all ages, rulers have 
been a terror to good works, and upholders of evil. In Eng- 
land, instead of being a terror to evil works, they have licensed 
drunkenness, and set themselves against the temperance refor- 
mation, lest the revenues should be diminished. In Hamburg 
and some other cities they have licensed prostitution. This 
passage further says, " do that which is good, and thou shalt 
have praise of the same" — the rulers. I repeat, I would like 
to know what praise the rulers of this country have given 
Lloyd Garrison ! I would like to know what praise the rulers 
of England gave to William Penn, or to the poor Quakers 
generally, some of the best people that ever lived on earth, 
when they filled the dungeons so full with them that they had 
no more room, and put a number of them to death ! What 
praise did the rulers of their day give Jesus of Nazareth, Paul, 



238 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

or the early Christians generally 1 The passage is as false in 
its statements as it is vicious in its morality. But to pro- 
ceed. 

We have in the Bible bad morality in reference to slaves 
and masters. The slave is to obey his master. He is to put. 
his master in the place of God. Slaves are taught that in 
obeying their masters they are obeying God ; though we know 
that they are sometimes commanded to act the thief, the mur- 
derer, or the prostitute. Submission to prostitution, obedience 
to God ! 

We have next commands to obey church rulers, laying the 
foundations of priestly power, and rearing a structure of impiety 
and inhumanity never equaled on earth before. If these com- 
mands had been obeyed, free thought, free speech, would have 
been unknown. The popedom and the inquisition would have 
reigned over all. But, thank God, the world has always had 
its heretics and infidels. 

Then we have commands of intolerance toward heretics and 
unbelievers — warning Christians not to receive into their houses 
a man that teaches a doctrine different from their own. In 
some parts of the Bible human sacrifices are required, and that 
in the most horrible form. Savage and bloody punishments 
are as common as the laws themselves. In the Old Testament 
you shall find capital punishment threatened to, at least, a 
hundred crimes ; and many of these so-called crimes are no 
violations of the laws of nature whatever. 

We have God presented to us next commanding the un- 
natural, cruel, and bloody rite of circumcision, and demanding 
it on the pain of death or excommunication. 

Then we have a countless multitude of ridiculous laws con- 
cerning sacrifices, offerings, priests, priestly garments, taber- 
nacle, ark, altars, and I can't tell what ; all tending to place the 
property, the souls, and the bodies of men at the mercy of an 
idle, overfed, licentious, proud, and revengeful set of priests. 
More ridiculous and contemptible laws sui'ely never were 



SARTFOED BIBLE CONVEJ^TION. 239 

enacted. Yet they were all written by God, accdrding to the 
Bible. 

Then we have the institution of a number of ridiculous holy 
days, which could be of no use to the people — holy days and 
holy years, when the land was to lie waste. It is impossible 
to count the number of foolish and mischievous laws in the Old 
Testament ; and you will find some even in the New Testa- 
ment. Here are a few examples. 

It is said, for instance, if any man lack wisdom, let him ask 
of God, who giveth liberally to all men, when every body knows 
that if a man were to pray for wisdom for a year, if he did not 
do something else than pray, he would be a bigger fool at the 
end of the year than when he began his prayer. 

Next came the laws of schism, making a division in the human 
race binding, though they forbid divisions in the Church. One 
passage represents those who separate themselves from human- 
ity, as sectarians do, as sinners ; while others require believers to 
separate themselves from mankind on pain of damnation. Then 
the Bible represents the world in general as lying in wickedness, 
while it represents the small remnant of believers as belonging 
to God, thus filling men with a pharisaical pride, and leading 
them to regard with pity and contempt the rest of mankind, 
causing them to refuse any fellowship or communication with 
them. For what fellowship hath Christ with Belial 1 Hence 
we have alienations, discords, and enmities in families, in neigh- 
borhoods, and states. Hence, too, the most fearful persecu- 
tions. Hence the inquisition — an institution of which human- 
ity had no idea till the Bible came to be regarded as divine, as 
the perfect and infallible law of God. I say that the Bible 
doctrines, when regarded as divine, give birth to persecution 
— that persecution is a duty if the Bible be God's word. If 
it is true, that an unbeliever is in danger of hell ; and if I can, 
by punishing his body, cure him of his unbelief, and so save 
him from hell-fire, I shall be doing him the greatest kindness 
possible by punishing his body. Besides, every infidel or 



240 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

unbeliever is in danger of making others unbelievers. A man 
cannot be a skeptic without spreading skepticism around him. 
As one sinner destroys much good, so may one disbeliever 
ruin millions of souls. And are we to have millions of 
souls condemned to hell through one man 1 Ought we not 
rather to put the man who avows destructive notions where 
he will be prevented from doing so much mischief] Is it not 
a duty to lodge him in prison, or put him out of the way 1 
What is the imprisonment or death of one man to the salva- 
tion of numbers of souls ? 

More than that ; the doctrine of the Bible gives birth to 
cruelty in other forms. It seems to be wisdom to the Catholic 
mother to poison Protestant children to secure to them the 
kingdom of heaven. I once heard a Methodist preacher, who 
was as good a soul as I ever knew, utter what will seem in- 
credible to many of you. He had been thinking about those 
passages which say, " Wide is the gate, and broad is the way 
that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in 
thereat ; while strait is the gate and narrow is the way that 
leadeth unto life and few there be that find it." He at the same 
time believed that all little children went to heaven. " Oh," 
said he, " if God would only give me permission, and endow 
me with the power, how glad I should be to go through the 
world and kill every babe on earth, and thus secure them all 
from damnation." It was a horrible sentiment ; but, on ortho- 
dox principles, it was a just and kind one. If we believed the 
common doctrine of the Bible worshipers, and had twenty 
children, we should prefer to have them all killed in childhood 
rather than one of them should run the risk of eternal torments 
in hell. It would be kindness to kill our children. 

Again ; the Bible is foolishly austere in places. It teaches 
that we must give account for every idle word. We must not 
jest. Every word must be grave and solemn. Those little 
follies which are often the greatest marks of a man's wisdom, 
must all be carefully avoided. We must pull as long a face, 

11 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION, 24:1 

and look as black and dismal as if we had a " spiritual halter" 
round our necks, and as if the devil had already dragged us by 
it to the smoky brink of the burning pit. (Laughter). 

We have also ridiculous injunctions in the Bible about sell- 
ing our houses and land, and giving the proceeds to the poor. 
If it is a bad thing to have houses and land, it is a bad thing 
for people to buy them ; and if every body should be as pious 
as we were, how should we sell our houses and land 1 There 
is no selling without buyers. 

We have many unnatural, cruel, partial, and unjust laws in 
the Bible. You may find them in multitudes in Leviticus, 
Deuteronomy, etc. There are other laws which are indecent, 
not fit to be read ; and others which may be read, but ought 
not to be obeyed or tolerated. Some of these partial laws 
sound strange. 

The Jews were not allowed to lend money to their brethren 
upon usury, but they might do so to strangers. The law which 
forbade the Jews to sell bad meat to each other, but allowed 
them to sell it to the Gentiles, has already been noticed. The 
explanation made by Mr. Storrs was forced and false. It was 
not that the Gentiles preferred bad meat, but because the Jews, 
who made these laws, and ignorantly or wickedly fathered 
them upon God, were proud and selfish, and believed that their 
God was not much wiser or better than themselves. 

Then we have laws against judging, as if people could avoid 
judging; and laws against taking thought for the morrow, as 
though men could help taking thought for to-morrow. " Well," 
says one, " it means anxious thought." Why, then, not say 
anxious thought 1 But what is meant by anxious thought ? 
How much thought can we have about to-morrow without being 
anxious 1 But the Gospel says, "take no thought;" and to 
show that it means no thought, it refers us to the fowls of the 
air, which neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns ; and 
to the lilies of the field, which neither toil nor spin ; and when 
it tells us that our heavenly Father notwithstanding feedeth the 



24:2 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

fowls and clothes the lilies, it plainly inculcates absolute 
thoughtlessness as to the morrow. 

We are next forbidden to lay up for ourselves treasures on 
earth. We must not lay by a little in youth and health for 
age and sickness ; but give all away as we get it, and trust in 
God for ourselves. The sermon before us seems to despise 
trade, and agriculture, and all providential or forelooking 
labor. It would have the Christians all absolutely poor, if not 
idle also. It allows no accumulation of capital — no regard for 
to-morrow. 

In accordance with these injunctions it commands us to give to 
him that asketh, and from him that would borrow of us, not to 
turn away. It commands us to lend, hoping for nothing again. 
The Bible believers have, generally, more sense than to obey 
these commands. Try them. Go ask them for a few thou- 
sands, either as a gift or a gospel loan. You will find them as 
wise as the children of the world — wiser than their sacred books 
and heavenly teachers. Take their cloak, and see if they will 
give you their coat to keep it company. Compel them to go 
with you a mile, and see if they will quietly go with you two. 
Humanity will prove too strong for divinity. Reason or 
common sense is too strong for revelation — where self-interest 
is concerned. 

Our friend Storrs says, in his resolution, that the Bible only 
needs to be rightly interpreted and legitimately applied. 
Does the Bible say any thing about rightly interpreting and 
legitimately applying it ? What is the right interpretation 
and legitimate application ? George Storrs' application. If 
all the world were to interpret or apply it in some other way, 
he would say that it was wrong. But is any human inter- 
pretation the right one ? We think not. The Gospel is the 
rule, not man's interpretation of it. The true interpretation 
means any thing but the Gospel, which itself is without 
interpretation. 

Then there are those malicious prayers which I have read 



i HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 243 

to you; and those passages which sanction slavery — the 
greatest of all crimes — the sum of all villainies ; and then the 
bad examples offered to us by persons of whom God is repre- 
sented as speaking in the highest terms — such as Abraham, 
Jacob, Joseph, Sarah, David, and the like. 

Then there are a hundred important subjects about which 
the Bible says not a word. Common sense says that cleanli- 
ness is important, and that it is not only next to godliness, 
but godliness itself in part ; but the Bible has nothing in favor 
of cleanliness. It seems rather to sanction dirt than cleanli- 
ness. The influence of the Bible has been to make people 
indifferent to the body, and to lead to dirt and uncleanliness 
in millions of men. 

Not a word is said about the use of alcoholic liquors as 
beverages ; or if there is any thing said, nine words are said 
in favor of their use, for one against; and some passages 
strongly recommend us to give strong drinks. " Give strong 
drinks to him that Is ready to perish ; and wine to those that 
be of heavy hearts. Let them drink, and forget his poverty; 
and remember his misery no more ! You remember the 
marriage of Cana.* When the guests had well drunk, Jesus is 
said to have made them from a hundred and eight to a hund- 
red and sixty-two gallons more. 

Then, again, there is not a word against gambling — not a 
word against dancing, that horrible crime in the eyes of the 
Church. There is not a word against putting a tombstone at 
the head of a dead man ; against which the Quakers are legis- 
lating so solemnly. Not a word against using tobacco or 
taking snuff or opium — three of the filthiest and most injurious 
practices known. There is not a word against suicide ; nor a 
word about a thousand things infinitely more mischievous than 
many of those things against which damnation is threatened 
in the Bible. 

Again, we find in the Bible a number of indelicate, obscene, 
revolting passages. I will not read them ; because, if I should, 



244: PE0CEEDING8 OF THE 

the ladies would feel that they had done wrong in coming 
here. There is the story of Lot's offering his virgin daughters 
to the filthy Sodomites. The best thing concerning this story 
is, that it can not be true. It is impossible. The father that 
could do such a deed never lived. Then there is the horrible 
story respecting the origin of the people of Moab and the 
people of Ammon, which story is demonstrated by physiology 
to be false. Then there are numbers of laws about tests of 
virginity, the treatment of wives suspected of unfaithfulness, 
etc. We need not quote them, you may read them, and judge 
for yourselves whether a book containing such laws can be 
from God. We have, in prophetic allusions to filthy rags, etc., 
new-born babes, and other figures and outrageous exaggera- 
tions, the most disgusting and astounding indelicacies to be 
found in any book I ever read in any language. We have 
also the tale about Onan — the account of the birth of Jacob 
and Esau, and the account of miraculous conceptions. We 
may also notice Paul's talk about marriage — the story of 
Abraham and Abimelech — the tale of Joseph and his mistress ; 
together with the celebrated Song of Solomon, all represented 
as the word of God. Can men really say they regard these 
things as special revelations from God, and keep a grave 
countenance? I can hardly think it. I can hardly believe 
that those persons who call it the Word of God have ever 
read the book attentively. I am sorry to have to speak on 
these matters; but if I am not sufficiently delicate in my 
allusions to passages, charge it on my familiarity with the 
Bible. When a child I had to listen to it daily, while my 
father read it through from beginning to end, missing nothing. 
It is said that a man can not touch pitch without being defiled ; 
you must judge then what we must be, who had to sit by and 
have bucketsful poured upon our head from day to day for 
nearly twenty years. (Laughter.) 

We have a number of other passages equally conclusive 
against the pretensions made in favor of the Bible. We have 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 245 

in the New Testament a number of misquotations, misinter- 
pretations, and misapplications of Old Testament prophecies, 
or passages regarded as prophecies. There are passages mis- 
applied respecting the birth of Christ and the flight into Egypt ; 
the place of his birth, the name he received, the slaughter 
of the infants, his entrance into Jerusalem, his death and 
resurrection. 

Again, there is, in the Bible, a quantity of false, foolish 
reasoning. There are the false and foolish arguments of Paul 
already noticed in regard to the relationship of husband and 
wife, and man and woman. Then there is the false and fool- 
ish reasoning of Jesus respecting Providence, and of Peter 
about baptism, comparing it to the flood of Noah. 

Then there runs through every part of the Bible a mixture 
of falsehood about God, about Providence, about heaven, 
about hell, about rewards and punishments, about man, about 
the earth, about the air, and about meteors ; even in the Lord's 
prayer, in Christ's discourses, in the ten commandments, and 
in the Apostolic sermons, we have all the marks of fallibility 
to be found in the writings and discourses of other men. 
Erroneous notions, false reasonings, mis-statements of matters 
of fact, digressions, inconsistencies run through all. The whole 
forms as perfect a mixture, thoroughly human, of folly and 
wisdom, truth and error, beauty and deformity, good and evil, 
as you will find in any book on the face of the earth. 

There is, next, the greatest uncertainty about the book in 
various respects. There is uncertainty as to what should form 
its contents. Christians can not settle among themselves 
what shall form part of the Bible, and what shall not. Three- 
fourths of the Christian world take fourteen books which the 
rest of the Christian world reject. Then, among the Protest- 
ants, some take Eevelations, and others reject them ; and Mr. 
Danforth has told you that it is the only book in the Bible 
that is inspired. And thus they diflfer among themselves. 
The early Councils diflered among themselves — some receiv- 



24:6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

ing a book and others rejecting it. Some, in our day, reject 
Solomon's Song, Ecclesiastes, and the book of Esther ; while 
others receive them all. You can not find out which books 
are canonical. You can not tell which parts are original, and 
which are interpolations. You can not tell what translations 
of the Bible are correct and what translations are incorrect. 
You may find out that none are correct, none trustworthy. If 
you could settle these points, you would still be at a loss to 
know what things are temporary, and w^hat permanent ; which 
parts are of universal application, and which parts of local 
application ; which was intended for one part of the world, 
and which for every part ; what was designed for particular 
classes, and what for all classes. You are further at a loss to 
tell which parts are figurative, and which are literal ; which 
are allegorical, and which are historical ; what is the primary 
meaning, and what is the secondary meaning of those passages 
which have a twofold meaning, if such there be. You can not 
tell what God spoke after the manner of men, and what after 
the manner of God ; what was spoken according to truth, and 
what according to appearances. 

You can not tell how to use Scripture examples ; how much 
of the examples to take, and how much to reject. In the 
examples of Jesus, you can not tell what things to follow, 
and what to shun. If Jesus was a perfect example, to be 
followed in all things, a man must not get married, have 
children, or a home. You can not tell how to use any Bible 
examples. You can not tell how to use the facts of Bible 
history ; for the Bible does not always tell you which deeds 
are bad and which are good. You can not tell how far God, 
Christ, and the Apostles are examples, either to yourselves or 
others; for God is represented in Scripture sometimes as 
doing one thing, and at other times another directly opposite. 
Some passages represent him as doing very bad things, and 
some passages say that you must imitate God; and yet 
if you should imitate some of his deeds as recorded in the 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 247 

Bible, you would be denounced as a monster, turned out of 
society, or hung by the neck till you were dead. 

So with regard to the interpretation of the book ; there are 
a thousand interpretations, and you can not tell which inter- 
pretation is best; you can do as others do, and say, "i/y 
interpretation is the best," but this is all. You can not tell 
with absolute certainty whether any interpretation is right or 
not. You know that all interpretations of the Bible are 
fallible. You may know that some one of them is wrong, 
but you can not tell with certainty that any one is right. In 
our opinion none are right. The Bible can not be expected to 
be interpreted correctly throughout. It is an old book in 
dead languages, written by many persons of different views, 
different tastes, different modes of expression, in different ages, 
different countries, among an endless diversity of customs, 
manners, theologies, morals, and politics. We have no other 
books in the same languages. These books have been altered 
and corrupted without end. Parts have been left out, parts 
put in, parts altered, parts transposed, till the meaning of the 
author is often entirely lost. , The helps to interpret the Bible 
are books written by prejudiced and often interested men, who 
have rendered the book more obscure. The rules of interpret- 
ation are very numerous, but often very foolish. The best of 
them are often hard of application. What can you do 1 

You do not know what rules are to be adopted in translat- 
ing and fixing the meaning of Chaldaic words and Hebrew 
words. You can not tell what Greek or Hebrew grammars are 
the best. You can not tell what lexicons are the best. You 
can not say what rules should be adopted for interpreting the 
history of theBible — what rules in interpreting prophecy — what 
in interpreting poetry — what in interpreting parables — what in 
interpreting allegories — what in interpreting types — what in 
interpreting metaphors — and what in interpreting the literal 
portions of the Bible. 

Then, again, you can not tell which is metaphorical, and 



248 PROCEEDINGS OP THE 

which is literal, which is prophecy, which history, and which 
prayer. One says that the parable of Dives and Lazarus is a 
matter-of-fact story — others say that it is a parable. Some 
take the words, "this is my body, and this is my blood" liter- 
ally, and others figuratively. Protestants say that it is figura- 
tive, but Catholics say that it is literal, and Jesus does not say 
that it was not litera ; and who is to decide ? Both can not be 
right ; but both may be wrong. You do not know whether 
there are in the Bible any types or not, according to the ortho- 
dox sense of the word. I believe there are none. But if there 
are, you can not tell which things are types, nor what the types 
typify. You can not distinguish the metaphorical portions 
from the literal, nor what is the meaning of either. You are 
in a world of uncertainty. Nothing is beyond mistake or dis- 
pute. A thousand sects interpret the book a thousand ways. 
They make it favor a thousand different doctrines, and who 
shall say which is right ? All are fallible. Infallible inter- 
pretations of the Bible can not be had. Each one's fallible 
mind must guess for itself, and no one, in thousands of cases, 
can do more than guess. And every one's guesses are influ 
enced by his prejudices, his temperament, and his interests. 
All use the book to build up their sects and their systems, and 
interpret it accordingly. If one interpretation does not answer 
his purpose, he finds or forges another. Thus the mists of 
ignorance and error are ever thickening under the influence of 
bigotry, piety, and sin. When the literal meaning goes 
against a man he always says " it is figurative ;" and when 
the figurative goes against him, he says " it is literal ;" and 
when both the literal and the figurative go against him, he says 
" it is mystical." (Laughter.) 

I said you can not distinguish between prophecy and history 
— ^between prediction and poetry — or between prediction and 
prayer. Some say that the passages which I read over to you 
from the Psalms, which sound so wickedly as prayers, were 
not prayers, but only predictions of God uttered in that form. 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 24:9 

They say they are threatenings of punishment against the 
enemies of God and Christ, and not the evil wishes of David 
against his personal enemies, and so they may go on forever. 
The Bible gives you no key, no rules, by which to decide 
the innumerable questions, or settle the countless disputes on 
these points. After the sects and priests have done their 
utmost, they will have to say, " Come down, O Lord, and 
decide these questions thyself." And even if God should come 
and make an explanation, they would quarrel about what he 
meant by his explanation. (Applause and laughter.) Yet 
this is the Protestant's perfect rule of faith and practice. 

Our opponents have talked about the law — the law — and the 
law by which to try the Bible, until their speeches have become 
as dull as an English winter's day. We can not, it seems, find 
them a law to their liking. It is doubtful whether they can find 
such a law for themselves. What is their law for judging of 
the character of the book ] They have one, I suppose. They 
say they have tried the Bible, and found it to be true and good ; I 
would like to know by what law they have tried it. Why do 
they not bring it forward % Have they tried the Bible without a 
law % If so, what is their verdict worth % If not, why keep 
the" law to themselves ? Have we not reason to fear that this 
ceaseless and wearisome call for a law is but a clumsy device 
to impose on the audience and evade the question under 
consideration 7 But to proceed. 

We have shown that the Bible can not be the word of God 
— or a book of Divine authority — or a perfect rule of faith or 
practice. Our remarks have shown it to be impossible. Let 
us now notice the pretended evidences of the common notion. 
They sound big in the ears of the ignorant, but they are nothing 
when examined. They are based on ignoranoe or fraud, from 
first to last. They prove nothing but the blindness or dis- 
honesty of those who employ them. 

The evidences usually adduced in favor of the Bible are 
divided into internal aud external evidences. The external 

11* 



250 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

evidences are miracles and prophecies. Now mark, first, they 
do not know — they are not agreed — what a miracle is. One says 
it is something which takes place in accordance with a natural 
law that is not yet understood ; while others say a miracle is 
a violation or suspension of the laws of nature, by the special 
agency of God. They do not, however, pretend to understand 
all the laws of nature. Yet how can they tell when the laws 
of nature are suspended or violated if they know not what those 
laws are 1 Some say that the word " miracle" is Latin, and 
means " a little wonder ;" and I wonder what kind of " a little 
wonder" it would be to prove the truth of all that is written in 
the book that I am talking about. (Laughter.) But how 
will you prove that miracles ever were wrought '? Will you 
prove the truth of the miracle by the Bible, before you prove 
that the Bible itself is true ? You have no other proof. But 
this is all a begging of the question. Leslie's argument is one 
of the most ridiculous things I know of for the nineteenth cen- 
tury. Yet there is nothing better on that side the question. 
I have read, I think, a hundred books about this external evi- 
dence, but I never could see much force in them, and now I see 
none. 

But there are prophecies which form a portion of the external 
evidence of the truthfulnesss of the Bible. But you have not 
yet ascertained what are prophecies. There are contradictory 
opinions as to what are prophecies. I have read what has been 
■written on this branch of the subject as far as I have had op- 
portunities. I have shown that the argument from miracles is 
a begging of the question — that Leslie's argument, and the 
arguments of all others who have written on the same side of 
the question, consist in a mere play upon words and ignorant 
declamation, or willful imposition. 

The evidence derived from prophecy is no better ; it is, if 
possible, sometimes worse. Writers on this subject often take 
for prophecies what are not prophecies. They also fail to prove 
the genuineness of the prophecies on which they build their 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 251 

arguments. They give no proof that the prophecies built upon 
were written at the time and by the persons alleged. Then 
they overlook the conditionality of all prophecies. Jeremiah 
teaches us that no prophecy of any blessing or calamity is to 
be expected to be fulfilled positively or unconditionally. His 
words are : 

" At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning 
a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it ; if that 
nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will 
repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what in- 
stant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to 
build, and to plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my 
voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit 
them." — Jer. xviii. 7-10. 

So that no prophecy is to be expected to be fulfilled without 
reference to the conditions. There was a prophecy concerning 
the house of Eli, that they should be God's priests forever, but 
when the Lord found out that Eli and his sons were not such 
men as he expected, he revoked his promise of good things to 
Eli, and declared that he should no longer be priest. These 
conditions in effect render prophecy of no avail ; for people 
can not tell whether a prophecy ought to be fulfilled or not, 
if they do not know whether its conditions, expressed or unex- 
pressed, have been fulfilled or not. The prophecy respecting the 
destruction of Nineveh had no condition expressed ; yet it was 
revoked. Jonah thought he was badly used by God, but there 
was no remedy. God had repented when he saw the penitence 
of the Ninevites. Then, again, there is no infallible interpret- 
ation of any prophecy. The language of prophecy is unusually 
obscure ; filled with the darkest symbols, which none but the 
prophets themselves could understand without a miracle. The 
prophets themselves did not always understand their own proph- 
ecies, according to the Scriptures. The probability is, that 
some of them were never understood at all by any man. This 
is the opinion of many divines. They say the events alone 



252 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

can reveal the meaning of prophecy. And if the prophecies 
are all conditional, the events may never happen. The proph- 
ecies, therefore, may never be explained on earth. It is 
possible some of them never had a meaning. 

Again ; words are not used in their ordinary- sense in proph- 
ecies. We are told that in prophecy a day signifies a thou- 
sand years. We are not, however, told this in the Bible. It 
is one of man's discoveries. When God speaks to us, he ought, 
as we think, if he wishes to be understood, to speak in a lan- 
guage that we can understand. But he does not, if the Bible 
be his word. This renders the difficulty of interpreting proph- 
ecy still greater. The disputes about the meaning of prophecy 
are endless. Some have been interpreted in as many different 
ways as there are days in a year. This is the case with the book 
of Revelations. Almost every commentator, critic, or fanatic 
has a different interpretation of the book. Not one of these 
interpretations of prophecy are infallible. They are probably 
all false. And the fallible interpretation and application of a 
prophecy can never form a foundation for an infallible argu- 
ment that a book is Divine. 

Again. To understand whether a prophecy has been fulfilled, 
we must have good, true history, and understand it well. But 
ancient history is proverbially false. The ancient historians 
did not pretend to write exact truth. They put into the mouths 
of their heroes speeches which they never made. The histo- 
rians themselves made them ; and they sometimes made por- 
tions of the story too. They took up the floating traditions 
of their day and recorded them as facts. All ancient history 
contains fables. Ancient historians resembled the old poets 
and bards whom they succeeded, and tried, like them, to please 
and thi'ill their readers, rather than to give a true account of 
events. 

Then history is generally written by one or the other of two 
political or religious parties. It was thus with the histories 
referred to by interpreters of prophecy. The Pagan historians 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 253 

speak of the early Christians as a pest ; as an overflowing of 
filth and fanaticism running everywhere. The Christian his- 
torians tallv in a similar manner of the Pagans. None of them 
tell you the truth. There are but few things in their accounts 
of each other that you can know for a certainty to be true. 
Their statements are often notoriously false. Their histories 
are never complete. 

Then the writers on prophecy can not always understand his- 
tory when they have it. They dispute about what history means. 
They complain of the historians themselves. Some find fault 
with Rollin, others with Psalmanazar, and almost all of them 
"with everybody but themselves ; and they get paid back — for 
everybody finds fiiult with them. 

If they understand the history, they do not know how to apply 
the prophecy to it. They dispute as to whether a prophecy 
should be applied to Napoleon or to Alexander, to the Pope 
or to Mohammed, to Antiochus or to Nero ; or to our friend 
Danforth's mice and frogs. They agree in nothing but in dif- 
fering from one another, and from everybody else. Then, 
again, those writers on the evidences often falsify, misquote, 
pervert, and alter prophecy. Bring me Keith, one of the most 
popular writers on prophecy, and I will prove to you that 
instead of quoting prophecy he makes it. The crafty Dr. Nel- 
son does the same. We have shown you that he is a willful 
deceiver. When he quotes a passage truly, and represents it 
correctly, if he wishes you to read it he tells you where it is ; 
but when he wishes to falsify, he hopes you will be content 
without reading, and so he does not tell you where it may be 
found. You have had an instance of Dr. Nelson's tricks in 
the passage quoted in reference to Voltaire. Keith is no better ; 
and I question whether you can find a better among all the 
orthodox evidence-manufacturers that have written on the Bible. 
They misquote both prophecy and history, they misrepresent 
them, and they misapply them. They pervert every thing. 

The great prophecies most frequently dwelt upon by any 



254: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

wi'iters on the evidences are the prophecies about Egypt, 
Nineveh, Babylon, and Tyre, those respecting the Jews and 
Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalem, and those pretended 
prophecies in Revelations, respecting the seven churches. 
Now, I undertake to prove that none of these prophecies have 
been fulfilled. I have examined every prophecy. I have found 
that Keith and Nelson have never taken any notice of more 
than one tenth or one fifth part of these prophecies. Then they 
generally alter and misquote those which they do notice ; and 
even then they often contradict one another, and give a proph- 
ecy different meanings from beginning to end. I examined 
these prophecies lately, and copied them out from the Bible with 
my own hand, and then compared them with those in the writ- 
ings of Keith and Nelson, and I found that these writers had 
frequently perverted them and made them into quite different 
things from what they are in the Bible. Their books are lies ; 
their arguments are frauds. And these are your evidences ! 

And so it has ever been. I am prepared to prove that the 
history of the Church is a history of fraud from the earliest ages 
to the present hour. That the priests of every nation on earth 
have been liars, wholesale,unconscionable, eternal liars — makers 
of lies. The ancient Jewish and the early Christian priests 
were liars. Even the Bible itself represents them as liars — 
great liars. Their successors in every age have been the same. 
They are so to this hour. The world is full of proofs. No 
confidence can be put in the testimony of any priest. If you 
believe the Gospel, the priests and theologians of Christ's day 
were a set of vipers — whited sepulchers, fair without, but 
within full of rottenness and dead men's bones. " Ye are of 
your father, the devil," said Jesus, "and his works ye do." 
The devil has two grand characters in the Bible — that of a liar 
and that of a murderer; and Christ gives the same black 
characters to the priests ; and if they are not still given to 
them in our day, they ought to be. (Applause and hisses). 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 255 

Mr. Barker, in making this speech^ took up his forty minutes' 
time, when, by motion, he was allowed to take sufficient addi- 
tional time to finish his remarks, of which proceeding 

Rev. Mr. Turner complained, and said that their propor- 
tion of time was not allowed to them — that of the morning 
session they had had but twenty-one minutes, and that all the 
afternoon had been taken up by their opponents ; and he would 
offer the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the course pursued by the managers of this Conven- 
tion, since last evening, has been contrary to the pledges made in the 
published call for the Convention — contrary to the rules established by 
the Convention to govern the disputants — unjust, uncourteous, unpar- 
liamentary, and an outrage upon the confidence of the citizens of this 
city, composing in part this audience. 

The reading of the resolution was attended by loud and 
boisterous applause, and cries of " Hear, hear," " true," etc. 

Mr. Garrison, after making a keen rebuke of certain dis- 
turbances in the galleries, said : I deny that this afternoon the 
other side of the question was not fully heard. I do not 
understand that in suspending the rule to allow Mr. Barker to 
finish his remarks, they are precluded from occupying as much 
time as he has occupied, should they wish. Last evening, in 
my case, it was kindly provided that I should have time to 
finish my remarks, and it was provided that the other side 
should have just as much time as I occupied. This was done 
that the continuity of the argument might not be broken up ; 
therefore, if they wish to occupy as much time as my friend 
Barker has, I hope they will be permitted to have that tilne. 

Mr. Barker — They decided, last night, that they would 
take their extra time for the extra time occupied by Mr. Gar- ' 
rison, not in the morning session, but this evening ; or they 
might have had nearly all the morning session. If they are 
allowed to occupy extra time to-morrow they will have had 
more than justice. If any have a right to complain it is our 
friends. 



256 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose — It seems to me that if any one 
has had any reason to find fault with regard to time, and has 
a right to claim the rest of the time during which this Conven- 
tion shall sit, it is woman. (Hear.) I think you ought to 
leave us, out of four days, at least one. 

On the motion of Mr. Garrison, it was decided that the other 
side of the question should occupy as much time as had been 
occupied by Mr. Barker. 

The Convention then adjourned to half-past seven o'clock, p.m. 



THIRD DAY— EVENING SESSION. 

Saturday^ June 4. 
At half-past seven o'clock the Convention was called to 
order by Mr. Barker, when 

Mr. S. J. Finney, of Ohio, offered the following resolu- 
tions : 

Resolved, That the spirit and genius of Bible religion, as a great 
system, both as found in itself, and as generally understood by all 
popular orthodox sects in Christendom, is not a system of salvation 
from sin or its effects, but a system of damnation into sin and its effects 
— not a system of human redemption from the bondage of religious 
error and moral corruption, but a system of enslaving into the bond- 
age of religious error and moral corruption. That it is a system of 
theological, religious, and spiritual piracy, carried on by a bigoted 
priesthood against the truths and laws of man's moral and spiritual 
nature. Therefore, 

Resolved, That, as a system, it is the friend of moral and spiritual 
slavery, and that it is therefore the foe of human, mental, and spiritual 
liberty, and, consequently, the foe of human progress. 

The reading of Mr. Finney's resolutions was attended with 
much applause and loud hisses. 

Mr. S. B. Brittan, of New York, then offered the follow- 
ing resolutions : 



HAETFOKD BIBLE C O N YEN TI O IST. 257 

Resolved, That inasmuch as the essential principles of life, and 
sense, and thought, and the ultimate causes of all things in being, 
whether visible or invisible, are forever imperceptible by the physical 
senses, we may, without violating the highest prerogatives of reason, 
believe in the actual occurrence of such occult and spiritual phenom- 
ena as are alleged to have occurred in different ages of the world, 
provided always that such accounts are supported by the concurrent 
testimony of several disinterested witnesses of known integrity and 
sagacity. 

Resolved, That we believe that Deity exists in His universe — that 
the life of God flows out through all his creations, aind hence that the 
life -principle or the Divine Spirit pervades and-.xr^-it-^es all His crea- 
tures, in the precise degree which may best secure th3 sublime objects 
and issues of His government. 

Resolved, That in our judgment God is visible in all things, in pro- 
portion as they approximate to the standard of Divine Perfection — that 
we perceive His likeness in the human intelligence more distinctly 
than we trace it elsewhere in the inferior objects of creation — that the 
nature and powers of the human jnind, no less than the testimony of 
the Scriptures, indicate that man was fashioned in the Divine image, 
and that his spirit is, when its attributes are duly harmonized, the 
temple of the living God. 

Resolved, Consistently with the views expressed in the foregoing 
resolutions, that we must conclude the relations subsisting between 
the human and the Divine are immutable and eternal ; that Inspira- 
tion IS A PERPETUAL Fact, and that no written communications 
purporting to be the records of ancient revelations, however true 
these records may be, can supply to the individual soul, and hence to 
the world, the place of a living and present inspiration. 

Resolved, That, in our humble opinion, the ancient prophets, Jesus 
Christ, and some of his apostles, and others in different ages of the 
world were, through their susceptibility to spiritual influences, inspired 
— not in violation of the laws of mind, but consistently with those laws 
— but that the records of what they experienced should be tried by the 
highest ordeal which modern science and enlightened reason are com- 
petent to institute. 

Resolved, That we have confidence in the innate integrity of human 
nature, much as it is perverted, and that we believe that most men of all 
classes, not excepting the clergy, are disposed — as far as the imperfec- 
tion of original constitution, the force of a perverted or false education, 
and the dominion of existing institutions and customs will allow — to 
honor the Truth and to respect the Right, and hence that dogmatism 



258 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE 

and denunciation are essentially unbecoming the Reformer, whose true 
mission is to inquire, to reason, and to teach 

Rev. Mr. Turner then said : I propose, in the first place, 
to notice some of the points made prominent last evening by 
our friend Garrison, so far as I was able to take them down. 

"The question," said he, "is. Is the Bible in its everv 
word Divine inspiration?" Now I do not understand that that 
is the question before this Convention. It may be one of the 
questions, and, with my friend, doubtless is the question. But 
the question is, ^, iiat is the origin, the authority, and influence 
of the Bible 1 Is it true that the question is, " Is every word 
of the Bible Divine inspiration V' We have not come here 
to defend the doctrine that every word in the Bible is given 
by Divine inspiration. We come here to defend the Bible as 
a record of divine revelations made to man, together with 
truthful narrations of facts connected with those revelations — 
I mean to say connected with them in their length and 
breadth. We do not pretend to say, for instance, that the 
words used by the serpent in the garden of Eden are Divine 
inspiration, although we believe the narration to be true. We 
do not claim for another text that it is inspiration, where it is 
said of God, " the heavens are not pure in his sight, and he 
charges his angels with folly." We read in the same book 
where this is recorded, that one of the three friends who had 
the argument with Job made these remarks, and those three 
friends are said to be wrong, while Job is justified, being in 
the right. I might quote other texts, but these are sufficient 
to show you my meaning. I simply regard such as matters 
of record of what has transpired. We do not claim for them 
that they are Divine inspiration, but we do claim truthfulness 
for them when in connection with Divine revelations made 
to man. 

My friend then says, " If it is not all inspired, how much is 
inspiration f He intimates a demand for a rule by which 
to decide what is, and what is not inspiration. All we have 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 259 

to say in regard to this question is, that it must be decided 
by the Bible, which our opponents say they will destroy by 
its own testimony. We are willing to put the boolc upon its 
own testimony, and try its own claims to Divine inspiration, 
and when they will put their hands on points, and state them 
openly and explicitly, we will answer them ; but it is not our 
intention to meet an harangue of objections which have no 
more connection than the north and south poles. 

But my friend continues, and says " certain portions of the 
book are not inspired." In this you perceive we agree. I do 
not believe that there is a single person in all New England 
who will say that every word of the Bible is inspired. The, 
Bible, however, may properly, as a book, be called the Book 
of Inspiration, because it contains inspiration ; but we do not 
mean to say that every word of the historical parts are in- 
spired. 

Mr. Garrison says, " The various sects"— which he claims 
have been originated by the Bible — "prove the impossibility 
of the existence of an infallible law by which to decide what 
is and what is not inspired — what is true and what is not 
true." My friend charges upon the Bible the sad effects 
which appear in the world in the variety of sects. He seems 
to charge the Bible as having produced this variety of sects. 
In his remarks he seemed to carry the idea that if there was 
in the Bible, or somewhere else, an infallible law by which 
we could decide what in the Bible was inspired, and what was 
not, then this variety of sects would not exist — that the mul- 
titude of churches that have grown up in the land would not 
be known — in a word, that there would not be so many spires 
in the city of Hartford. 

Mr. Garrison said : I did not say that the Bible is charge- 
able with all this variety of sects and opinions, but that with 
the doctrine that the Bible is the inspired word of God, people 
come to that book and are found by the ears, in regard to its 
teachings, showing very plainly that every reader makes it 



260 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

after his own image, and draws from it the conclusions which 
are most agreeable to his own ideas of right and truth. 

Rev. Mr. Turner — It does not vary the point in hand. 
You see that the charge lies against the Bible ; namely, it has 
no infallible law to which the Bible may be brought, and its 
truth or falsity ascertained, that the people may become 
united, and constitute one sect instead of many. Then the 
conclusion is drawn that the Bible did not proceed from God 
— not all of it at least, and it is to be scanned by human 
reason alone — that the Bible is to be brought to the standard 
of private judgment. Do you not see that my friend Gar- 
rison, in taking this position, has laid the axe at the founda- 
tion of his whole argument ? Suppose we turn the tables, and 
tell them that on account of their differences as to the teach- 
ings of the book of nature, that book can not be regarded as 
possessed of any authority, and therefore of no use in the 
trial of the Bible. (Applause.) My friend Garrison pro- 
ceeds under the same head, and says that " some teach that the 
Bible teaches eternal suffering ; others that the Bible teaches 
the universal salvation of all men. Some say that the Bible 
teaches the election of some to everlasting life, and the repro- 
bation of others to everlasting suffering, and the like ;" and he 
then says, "Why this difference of opinion?" Do you not 
see that the same charge lies with equal and ponderous 
w^eight against their "book of nature"?" The fault is not in 
the book of nature. So far as they can understand the book 
of nature it is right. We believe that the God of the Bible is 
not only the God of the Bible, but the God of the book of 
nature. So far as men understand the Bible, that book is 
right ; and so far as they understand the book of nature, that 
is right ; and that is the difficulty of men's arriving at first 
conclusions. If this objection can be brought against the 
Bible, it can be brought against the clearest statute that has 
ever been made in civil law. Is there scarcely a trial where 
there is not argument and contention upon the meaning of the 



HABTFOED BIBLE CONVENTIOK. 261 

plainest law books in New England'? And is it to be infer-" 
red from that fact that there is not a law 1 The law is there ; 
but each one argues from the motives which, though he may- 
be honest, blind him. So in reference to the Bible. 

But, says Mr. Garrison, " Have we an infinite or a finite 
God ? Have we a God who will command peace at one time, 
and at another war ]" And this he charges against the Bible, 
Mr. Chairman, can not an " infinite God," under some circum- 
stances, ordain war, and under other circumstances ordain 
peace 1 

Mr. Garrison — I said that in the nature of things there 
are antagonisms. For instance, we speak of truth and of 
falsehood. We speak of right and of wrong ; so of peace 
and war. They never can be identical ; and they never can 
be substituted the one for the other. It is not in the power 
of God, as he is constituted and made, ever to make the lie a 
truth, or to make the truth a lie ; and so it is not possible for 
him morally to be a God of peace, and then at another time 
to be a God of war, any more than he can be a God of verac- 
ity, and then at some other time be a God of falsehood. 

Kev. Mr. Turner — I accept the explanation so far as it goes. 
The idea attempted to be conveyed was, that the Bible was 
fallible and unreliable, because it represents God as at one 
time commanding peace, and at another time commanding 
war. Now, we ask again, if the God of the Bible is infinite, 
may he not at one time command war, and then at another 
command peace, without change 1 Does not the God of na- 
ture command war at one time and peace at another 1 Is not 
the God of nature the originator of the earthquake, and is not 
that war to the knife with every thing with which it comes in 
contact ? And when it has spent its fury, and the heavens are 
calm above, pray, is it not the God of nature that ordains 
peace 1 To say the least of it, is it not as reasonable for the 
God of the Bible, under some circumstances, to command war, 
and in others, peace ? It has been admitted upon this stand 



262 PROOEEDINGS OF THE 

that the God of the Bible might, if the best good of the whole 
was in view, cut off certain nations. This must be admitted, 
or else the God of nature must be put on to the stand, and 
tried, before we can reach the testimony of the Bible in regard 
to its God. It is said that God is represented as the author of 
terrible suffering in the coming world, and it is said that some 
teachers teach that the Bible teaches that he is the author of 
eternal suffering. Since this teaching has been so often re- 
ferred to, and charged upon the Bible, I feel it my duty to 
repel the charge. Sir, that Bible does not teach such a doc- 
trine between its lids. If my time permitted, I would give 
you my reasons at length for repelling the charge. Nowhere 
are you taught in the Bible that God has attached to a viola- 
tion of his laws eternal suffering ; and all the long, frightful 
poem that we have listened to about that hell where infants 
go, only originated in the frenzied intellect of a feeble man, 
to whose, or a like intellect, my friend Garrison proposes to 
bring the Bible to determine whether it is true or not. (Ap- 
plause.) 

Mr. Pillsbury, in his quotation of the poem, represented by 
that quotation that the Bible taught that infants would burn 
forever in hell, and never waste and never die. We repel 
the charge, and we wish that we could write it on the blue 
arch of the heavens above us, that the Bible does not teach 
such a doctrine. 

Mr. Pillsbury — I will correct a little misapprehension. I 
merely cited the poem. I did not give it as my opinion that 
the Bible taught such a doctrine. I said that this doctrine had 
once been held, and that the men of nature had taught a dif- 
ferent doctrine, and that now that doctrine was laid aside. 

Rev. Mr. Turner — I do not intend to charge my friend with 
entertaining these views. I only say that he quoted this poem 
to show the doctrine formerly entertained by certain individ- 
uals, and then he charged it upon the Bible. I put the charge 
upon the intellect, which is the "God of Nature." (Ap- 



HAHTFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 263 

plause.) In all these trials of this subject we find that the 
God of nature has originated the errors, while the Bible frowns 
them eternally away from its sacred pages. (Applause.) 

Another charge brought against the Bible by Mr. Garrison 
was, that " those who make the loudest professions to faith 
in the Bible give the greatest evidence of cowardice ana cor- 
ruption." I do not intend to take issue with him in the length 
and breadth of his charge ; for let me say here, if I were to 
speak in full my sentiments with reference to this position, I 
should in part sustain my friend Garrison ; for it is a lament- 
able fact, that the history of the profession of religion in this 
world has given too sad a testimony in favor of the position 
he has taken. The loudest professions have in too many in- 
stances been against the Bible, instead of in favor of it. But 
what does this prove 1 It just proves that, if your speaker 
himself were a hypocrite, the Bible has told you that there 
would be such, and the Bible points out the distinct difference 
between a hypocrite and a Christian. 

We have been told that " certain religionists in our time 
have judged that they may have several wives, and if they be 
filled with the Holy Ghost, they will not complain because 
their husbands take more wives ;" and it is said that " they 
(the religionists) go to the Bible for authority. They say that 
it is taught in the Bible." We first claim that the Bible does 
not teach any such thing — (" Good, good," and applause) — 
nor can any such teaching be pointed out. 

We would here remark, the fanatical theory here referred 
to is a specimen of the decisions of the law of the human in- 
tellect — (" Good, good") — and if you will give me the heads 
that countenance this idea, I will demonstrate it before this 
congregation, or before any other. We say from a knowledge 
of human intellect, that we know that we can demonstrate this 
fact by an examination of the cranium. 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — Would my friend like to have the evi- 
dence for the charge produced ? I will state to the audience 



264 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

that the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mis- 
sions has decided that the Bible does encourage polygamy, 
and they encourage it, and have a good many polygamists in 
the Christian churches. 

Rev. Mr. Turxer — We do not doubt what friend Pillsbury 
states with reference to this matter ; but suppose all the mis- 
sionary societies in the world were to decide that the Bible 
taught the doctrine of polygamy, are we to believe it ? They 
do not make our Bible. If they did, we should be the wor- 
shipers of the God of nature and the God of the intellect. 
Human nature formed such a Bible. 

I desire to make a few more remarks in reference to the 
charge made by Mr. Garrison, that " those who make the 
loudest professions of their faith in the Bible, manifest the 
greatest cowardice and corruption." We think that it is true 
on one side of this charge, but not true on the other. It is 
true, to a certain extent, that many individuals who bow down 
to what they think the Bible teaches, dare not, if a doctrine 
they teach is opposed, come out before the public and defend 
what they teach. Whether they think that it is politic to 
stand back, and not risk their doctrines in the hands of those 
who might handle them roughly, I know not — let others de- 
cide ; but we can not say that all those who make the loudest 
professions of their faith are full of cowardice and corruption ; 
for there are those who make great professions, upon whom 
you can not cast a blot, but their whole lives have been lives 
of virtue, their enemies being judges. 

Mr. Garrison denies that the apologists for the Bible believe 
it, else believing it, they would follow its commands ; but 
when they are commanded to take care of the poor, they are 
not ready to do it ; and though they may give sums of their 
money for some purposes, they would not give any consider- 
able sum to build a place to keep the poor fugitive slave in. 
Suppose there are some who in words are apologists for the 
Bible, who do not follow the precepts of that blessed book, 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 265 

does that prove that the Bible is not a book of truth and mo- 
rality ? Does not the same Bible that they have advocated 
condemn the advocate? If it does not, how can my friend 
Garrison reason from their inconsistency with the doctrines or 
teachings of the book they profess to believe ? 

Mr, Garrison — My friend misapprehends the point entirely. 
I do not say that believing the Bible, they would always obey 
the Bible. My declaration that I did not think that they 
really believed the Bible, was made to relieve them from the 
awful criminality which otherwise would be chargeable upon 
them in keeping the book, by express statute, away from three 
millions of this country, under the lash of the slave-driver, 
and thus consigning them to everlasting damnation. While 
professing that the Bible, as the Word of God, is necessary to 
make men wise unto salvation, they ought to let men have it, 
and not let them, as they profess to believe, perish everlast- 
ingly for the want of it. So to relieve them from precipitat- 
ing these men into hell about which they talk, I chose to say 
that they themselves had no faith in the doctrines which they 
professed to believe. 

Rev. Mr. Turner — Here, then, is the charge that they do 
not carry out their Bible. He argues that if they believe their 
Bible, they ought to do as it commands. I say so. He 
charges them with unbelief in the Bible, because they do not 
obey its requirements. After all, the charge is, because that 
such do not act according to the laws of that Bible by which 
he finds them guilty. Then, what does this prove against the 
Bible 1 I contend that it is an argument in favor of the Bible. 
It is an argument that if that Bible was believed, was cherished, 
was loved, the poor would be fed, the naked would be clothed, 
and the hungry would be fed, and the destitute would be 
sheltered. Instead of that Bible justifying slavery, ever par- 
ticle of its contents is in favor of letting the slave go free, and 
making him truly a man. One text has often been quoted 
here, to show that our Bible sanctions slavery ; but I refer 

12 



266 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

you simply to the explanation of last evening by brother Storrs, 
and we call it perfectly satisfactory in regard to that point. 
For the trials and labors through which Mr. Garrison has gone, 
in the cause of freedom and in his warfare against slavery, I 
honor him; but I must defend the Bible. (Applause.) That 
Bible I believe to be in all its parts totally and forever op- 
posed to American slavery. It is far from countenancing it in 
the least. We wipe the charge off, and we venture its being 
fastened there again. This argument to which I have just re- 
ferred was not made by my friend Garrison ; for I believe that 
he could not well make such an argument, for he learned his 
first principles of anti-slavery from the Bible. When he 
launched his ship upon the sea of human redemption, he took 
the Bible as his compass, and made it the man of his counsel. 
Do I say too much, when I say that, after all, he may be in- 
debted to the Bible for his best feelings upon the subject of 
anti-slavery ? 

Mr. Garrison — Just allow me to say, by way of explana- 
tion, that there is no book in the world that I have used so 
much against slavery as the Bible — none so effectively as the 
Bible ; and yet I do not believe in the plenary inspiration of 
the volume. 

Eev. Mr. Turner — Mr. Garrison continued his remarks, and 
said, when these apologists for the Bible find that public sen- 
timent favors such a course, then they will throw the Bible 
away ; that is, as a book of plenary inspiration. Now, if this 
be an inspired prophecy, it will prove true. But I question 
whether it is inspired or not. I doubt it ; and the reason why 
I doubt it, is because in so many instances we have found the 
revelations of " the God of nature," which come from the in- 
tellect alone, have proved untrue. There are men who would 
feel like turning the world upside down, if they could, and we 
suspect friend Garrison to be one such ; and that spirit is ad- 
mirable ; but we must be careful how we indulge a spirit of 



HAETFORD BIBLE COKVENTION. 267 

this kind not to go a little too far. The Bible is the standard 
of our ambition. 

The clergy have resolved to let this Convention pass by in 
dignified and lofty silence ; but they may depend upon it that 
they have got to meet this question eventually. (Applause.) 
The stone is rolling ; and although with my present views I 
regret to find these friends taking the position they do, I 
think that this question will continue to be agitated— that the 
stone will continue to roll — and I am ready to meet it with 
its heaviest shock first, that when it comes to the champions 
of truth, it will have spent half of its force. (Applause.) 

I consider that no valid argument has as yet been made 
against the Bible. Objections are not arguments. Suppose 
that I get up and say that the Bible teaches thus and so, and it 
contradicts itself again and again, do you infer that I have made 
any arguments at alH If the God of your reason is not 
asleep, you will see that the man who merely throws out ob- 
jections has not given you an argument. They are merely 
the assertions of a fallible individual. 

Our opponents say that the God of the Bible is changeable, 
because he commands war at one time, and then peace at 
another. You might as well say that the cars are not on the 
track, because they stopped at Hartford and they stopped at 
Springfield. It is admitted that the God of nature may even 
cut off" infants and human beings for the good of the whole. 
— [Mr. Wright — No] — and yet they complain because the 
God of the Bible may have exterminated one people for the 
good of another. (Applause.) 

Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose then made the following speech : 
My friends, I rise under peculiar disadvantages : one is that it 
is so late, and another that the ground has been most ably, 
eloquently, and masterly occupied by the various speakers who 
preceded me. Under these circumstances I would prefer not 
to speak at all, were it not for the fact that this movement 



268 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

seems to me to be one of the highest and greatest importance 
that has taken place in our age — (Applause) — of more im- 
portance even than the one that has so long lain at my heart, 
the rights of woman — (Applause) — for it is closely connected 
with it ; and as w^oman has not been represented here, I feel it 
my duty to raise my voice and protest against the Bible, or, 
as it is called, the Word of God; for if a line of demarkation 
could be drawn of the injurious effects produced by the errors 
of that book on man or woman, I would say most emphatic- 
ally, that on account of the inferior education and experience 
of woman, the errors of the Bible which have been palmed 
off upon society as emanations from some superior wisdom 
and power, have had a far more pernicious effect on the mind 
of woman than of man ; for knowledge and experience are the 
only safeguards against superstition ; and as woman has re- 
ceived less of the light of knowledge, superstition has had a 
stronger hold on her mind, and has enslaved her far more than 
man. (Applause, hisses, and cries of " Shame, shame.") 

Mrs. Rose, on looking around at the confusion, said — My 
conviction is, that man always acts as well as he can ; and if 
I see my poor unfortunate fellow-being act as it appears to me 
inconsistent and irrational, I can but pity him for it. (Ap- 
plause.) 

The question under consideration, I believe, is the origin, 
influence, and authority of the Bible, or, Is the Bible an ema- 
nation from, or inspiration of, God. It seems to me that it 
would have been more in order had we commenced by in- 
quiring what is meant by the term God, or divine ; but here 
again a difficulty presents itself. Where shall we commence to 
make the inquiry *? If we go back to past ages, to the very 
infancy of the race, and from thence come up to the present 
time and hour, and ask the definition of God, the answer would 
be that, just what any age or people considered their beau-ideal 
of greatness, of wisdom, of virtue, and of perfection, they 
embodied in one grand idea, and called it God. (Renewed and 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 269 

long-continued disturbance in the gallery.) I will wait till I 
can be heard. (Renewed confusion.) This confusion is an 
evidence of the influence of the Bible. (Hissing.) The Bible 
tells them that woman " should not speak in public." Oh, 
no, she must not raise her voice in behalf of truth and human- 
ity, and if she does, she is met with confusion and riot by the 
believers in that doctrine ; but after all, that is the best argu- 
ment that can be brought in support of the Bible. With the 
sword it has been promulgated, with riot and confusion it must 
be supported. (Applause and hisses.) Yes! if we go back 
to the past, we find that men in all ages, all countries, con- 
ditions, and states, have always embodied what to them ap- 
peared the acme of perfection, and worshiped it. In those 
ages wherein the warrior, the conqueror, the hunter has been 
considered the most perfect and noble beings in the conception 
of men, they have cut out images of stone, wood, silver, and 
gold, to embody the various attributes, and knelt down and 
worshiped them ; and as we came up from the long past, 
through all ages, without mentioning the various gradations, 
for time is short, to the present time, we still behold the same. 
The opinions only as to what constitutes greatness, goodness, 
and perfection have changed ; the tastes have become more re- 
fined, the feelings more humanized, the minds more enlightened 
and consistent. Man, in fact, has become more civilized ; 
therefore the beau-ideal of his conception, or the idol of his 
imagination, is so too. Thus, instead of cutting out an image 
of the grosser materials, or painting it on the canvas, and 
then kneeling down to worship it, he shuts his eyes and beholds 
the embodiment of what appears to him to be the greatest, 
best, and noblest of human attributes, on the retina of his 
imagination, and bows down his head and pays homage to it ; 
but however gross or refined, it is ever a likeness of himself, 
or what he would wish to be. It has been a great mistake to 
say that God has made man in h-is image, for man in all ages 
and times has made his god in his image, and hence we have 



^W PKOCEEDINaS OF THE 

as great a variety of religions and gods as we have stages and 
gradations of man's perception of the true, the beautiful, and 
the noble, from the darkest ignorance and barbarity to the 
present comparative state of knowledge and civilization. 
(Prolonged applause, hissing, and hooting.) Hiss on, if it does 
you any good. I give utterance to these convictions to aid in 
man's emancipation from the superstition and ignorance from 
which he has so long suffered. I know but too well what it is 
to go against the long-cherished and time-honored prejudices 
and superstitions. It is' no pleasant task to go against the 
current, but there is a sense of duty that balances all unpleas- 
antness, even hissing and hooting, and all, that is more potent 
than all persecutions, that brings a peace of mind, content, and 
happiness that none can feel but the mentally free. (Ap- 
plause.) But to the subject. The Rev. Mr. Turner denied 
the objections brought against the Bible, saying that objections 
were not arguments ; but I would respectfully remind him, 
that denials are no arguments, and it would have been better 
to confute the arguments that were brought against the Bible, 
than to do nothing but constantly deny them. (Applause.) 
To judge of the inspiration of the Bible we must examine 
the Bible itself, and as its contents will appear consistent or 
inconsistent, so we must pronounce it based upon truth or 
error, for truth is always consistent with itself, and with every 
other truth, while error is always inconsistent. Now, when 
we examine the Bible in its commencement, we find its ac- 
count of creation is perfectly inconsistent with, and contrary 
to, the sciences of geology, astronomy, physiology, and all well- 
ascertained facts based upon science and truth ; and therefore 
we are justified in saying that whosoever wrote or inspired 
that part of the book must have been utterly ignorant of all 
these sciences ; and as we proceed, we find so many inconsist- 
encies, vices, and cruelties, that it is impossible to ascribe 
them to a wise or kind and benevolent power or being. (Hiss- 
ing, stamping oCfeet, and whistling in the gallery, and cries 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONTENTION. 271 

of " Go on, go on.") My friends, there was once a time when 
I had a voice strong enough to speak against all opposition, 
and be heard, but that time is past. My constitution has been 
somewhat broken, and mainly broken in the great conflict 
against error. I had hoped that whatever our opponents might 
think of my opinions, they would behave like gentlemen, though 
believers and defenders of the Bible. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") 
[A lady said — "If you have a heart to speak, speak on."] 
(Great applause.) I thank my sister for saying so. I have a 
heart to speak, and I will speak. (Tremendous applause.) 
My friends, you who do not know how long and how ardently 
I have wished for such a movement — can have no idea how I 
rejoice in this Convention, even hissing and all. (Applause.) 
The time was, some twenty-five years ago, when I stood alone 
on a platform — (Voice, "Where?") — for precisely the same 
noble cause, to defend the rights of humanity against the as- 
sumptions, superstitions, and errors of the Bible, without know- 
ing that there was another human being in the wide world who 
thought as I did, and there and then I bore testimony against, 
the same errors that I do now. (Applause and hissing.) 

[The Rev. Mr. Turner expressed his hopes that Mrs. Rose 
would not be interrupted.] 

As we proceed in our investigation of the Bible we find it 
inculcates war, slavery, incest, rapine, murder, and all the vices 
and crimes that blind selfishness and corruption could suggest; 
many have been enumerated here to-day, but it is utterly im- 
possible to enumerate all. That book has been a two-edged 
sword to men ; it has united them in nothing but persecution ; 
to woman it has been like a millstone tied to her neck to keep 
her down ; it has subjected her to the entire control and arbi- 
trary will of man. It has libeled human nature, and libeled 
the very God of whom it speaks — it represents him as having 
created man in utter ignorance of consequences, as having 
created one sex, and pronounced it all to be very good, but 
found out that "it was not good for man to be alone," there- 



272 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

fore he created woman — ^not for the same aims and objects of 
life that he created man — oh, no ! but because he found, con- 
trary to his expectation, that it was not well for him to be 
alone. So, after he had finished his work, and rested, he had 
to go to work again and make woman. This might be sub- 
lime if it were not ridiculous. And yet, do you know, my 
sisters, that most of the subjugation of woman, the tyranny 
and insult heaped upon her, sprung directly or indirectly from 
that absurd and false assumption. It is an insult to the sup- 
posed Creator to say he created one half of the race for the 
mere purpose of subjecting it to the other, as well as a libel 
on the nature and powers of woman, to say that there is no 
other aim nor destiny in her existence except to be a mere 
plaything or a drudge to man, as the circumstances may re- 
quire. The writers of all such parts of the Bible, where it 
libels her nature and powers, and therefore restricts her rights 
more than man's, were alike devoid of a knowledge of her nature 
and destiny, as of wisdom, justice, and humanity. 

Yes, in reading that book understandingly, and judging it 
by its own contents, it tells us in language not to be misunder- 
stood, that instead of being an emanation from some exalted 
wisdom and goodness, it is simply the work of different minds, 
existing in different ages, possessing different degrees of knowl- 
edge and principle ; and in accordance with their state of pro- 
gress, their knowledge, and feelings, so did they write — they 
could do no better. I have charity and forbearance for the 
writers of the^ Bible. Had they had loftier conceptions, juster 
ideas, kinder feelings, and a more accurate knowledge of nature 
in general, and human nature in particular, they would have 
written quite a different Bible. As it is, it seems to me to be 
a concoction of incongruities, absurdities, and falsehoods almost 
rapossible to conceive. It is true we find some excellent 
sentiments in it, such as "love thy neighbor as thyself," " do 
unto others as you would others should do unto you/' and 
some others equally good ; and though they are not original 



i 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 273 

with the Bible, they are still beautiful sentiments ; but as ar- 
bitrary commands they never can be carried out, for man is a 
being that requires a reason and a motive for his actions. 
Give him the reason and motive to love his neighbor as him- 
self, in the knowledge of human nature and the relation he 
sustains to his fellow-man ; convince him that he can find hap- 
piness only in proportion as he endeavors to promote the 
happiness of others — not only of those immediately connected 
with him, but of the race, for the race is but the great family of 
man, of which every individual is a member ; and depend upon 
it, there will be no necessity for arbitrary commands with prom- 
ised bribes and artificial rewards for the observance, and 
threats of penalties and artificial punishments for the non-ob- 
servance of the great moral law nature has implanted in man 
for his rule of action, but which ignorance and error, called re- 
ligion, has stifled by making mere belief of more consequence 
than works. A blind fiiith in things unseen and unknown is 
upheld as the greatest virtue in man. 

The idea that " he that believeth shall be saved, and he that 
believeth not shall be damned," has caused more mischief to 
man than all the rest of the Bible could ever have benefited 
him, for it has produced all the persecution and ill-will on 
account of belief; and it is evident to my mind that the writer 
of this passage was utterly ignorant of the nature and forma- 
tion of belief, or he would have known that there can be no 
merit in belief, nor demerit in disbelief, for it is not in our 
power to believe or disbelieve by a mere effort of the will. 
In childhood, belief is given to us the same as our food ; we can 
make a child believe that what we call black is white ; and if 
we tell it that it is of the highest importance, that its happi- 
ness here and hereafter depends upon its being called white 
instead of black, and any one who dares to call it by any other 
name is a bad man, an enemy to the power who wished it to 
be called white, and an enemy to man, whose safety here and 
hereafter depends upon its being called white, that child, if 

13* 



274: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

grown up, and possessed of an ardent, sincere, and conscien- 
tious temperament, would lay down his life, or sacrifice the 
lives of others, in support of black being white ; and yet it 
would be black for all that. Thus we can make a child believe 
error to be truth, and it may die or sacrifice the lives of others 
in maintenance of it, and yet the error is not truth, but error. 

[Here Mrs. Rose was interrupted by hissing, hooting, and 
stamping. Some gentleman asked if such disturbances were 
the kind of arguments by which they expected to sustain the 
Bible ? He hoped not. Mr. Barker said, " As we can not do 
the Bible justice without their assistance, they, the disturbers, 
are willing to assist us." At this point, some one having gained 
access to the gas-meter, turned off the gas, and for some 
minutes a continual hissing, shrieking, stamping, drumming 
of canes, and whistling was kept up by the rioters, mainly 
occupying the gallery, the body of the church having been 
occupied almost entirely during the Convention by peace- 
able and well-disposed auditors, who during the enactment of 
this scene mostly sat in silence. The utter confusion made it 
impossible to hear any voice that might have appealed to any 
sense of decency and propriety perhaps yet existing in the 
minds of the rioters. The lights being restored, Mrs. Rose 
proceeded with her remarks, and said :] 

When the lights were extinguished, it reminded me of one 
of the true things we find in the Bible, that some there are 
" who love darkness better than light." (Laughter and ap- 
plause.) Just before that demonstration I endeavored to im- 
press upon your minds how easily a child may be made to 
believe a falsehood and die in support of it, and therefore there 
can be no merit in a belief. We find in the various sects in 
Christendom, among the Jews, Mohammedans, Hindoos, in 
fact, throughout the entire world, that children are made to 
believe in the creed in which they ^re brought up. The chil- 
dren of the sect called the Thugs are made to believe in their 
creed, their bible — for they, too, have a bible, and priests to in- 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 275, 

terpret it, and bibles are always written so obscure as to require 
priestly interpreters — which tells them they are g<3verned by 
a goddess ; they seem to favor the rights of woman. (Applause.) 
Their means of salvation is to strangle every one they come 
in contact with who does not believe as they do ; and the more 
infidels and heretics they strangle the surer their reward in hea- 
ven, and the most pious and conscientious among them try to 
bring the most human sacrifices ; and as humanity is not quite 
dead even among them, so they have quite a refined way to 
dispatch their victims : they have a silken cord made into a 
lasso, and when they come in contact with an unbeliever, they 
throw it adroitly over his head, and by a quick pull strangle 
him without the shedding of blood, and almost without a strug- 
gle. So strongly is humanity engrafted in man, that in spite of 
all the errors and superstitions called religion, it has not en- 
tirely been destroyed. (Applause.) 

Referring to some loafer in the gallery with his boots hang- 
ing over the railing, Mrs. Rose said : I do not know but ex- 
hibiting the boots over the railing may be a part of the defense 
of the Bible, but whether it is so or not, we live in an enlightened 
age, in the free United States of America, where every one 
may do as he pleases, so long as he does not interfere with the 
rights of others, even to exhibit his boots or discourse in 
favor of the Bible. (Applause and hissing.) 

Thus we see that children acquire their belief as they acquire 
any other habit. In after life, when we are more capable of 
reasoning, comparing, and reflecting, belief depends on the 
amount of evidence. If the evidence is strong enough to con- 
vince the mind, an assent is elicited ; if the evidence is not 
strong enough to convince the mind, we can not believe ; and 
the amount of evidence sufficient to convince one mind may 
not be enough to convince another ; but whether the evidence 
is convincing or not, there can^be no particle of merit in belief, 
or demerit in disbelief. No one within the reach of my voice 
can persuade himself that he hears me not, nor any one out of 



276 PEOCEEDIS"GS OF THE 

it that he hears me, any more than he can believe that two 
and two make five, after he has been made to know that they 
make four. Yet in spite of this truth in connection with the 
formation of belief, all religions have been based on the false 
supposition that we can believe as we j^lease, or as the priest 
wishes us to, and therefore we were promised rewards for 
believing, and punishment for disbelieving, the fashionable 
superstitions called religion. 

Christianity Is based on this error, my friends. I say it not 
in anger, but in sadness of heart, that all cruelties, persecutions, 
and uncharitableness, from the time of the Inquisition to the 
present hissing, have been in consequence of that irrational and 
pernicious sentence, " He that believeth shall be saved, and 
he that believeth not shall be damned." (Hissing.) That is 
perfectly consistent with your belief. But convinced as I am 
of the truth of the formation of human character, and of the 
inconsistencies, errors, and falsehoods of the Bible, in teaching 
a doctrine contrary to truth and to nature, I must come to the 
conclusion, that no very good, wise, exalted power or being 
could have been the author of it. 

Now a few ^vords as to its influence. As the Bible is based 
on error, what can its influence be but pernicious ? For as 
truth is always beneficial, so is error always injurious. If we 
examine the history of Christianity, we will find that every step 
of its progress has been made in blood, and every atrocity 
committed has found authority in the Bible. When the tyrant 
of Russia and his despotic coadjutor of Austria subjugated 
poor, bleeding Hungary, they brought authority from the Bible. 
They told them that all power was of God — kings, priests, and 
emperors reign by the grace of God. " Oppose not those in 
authority ; submit to the powers that be, for they are of God," 
nas been the motto of every tyrant and every usurper ; and 
when the burden has become too heavy to bear, the yoke too 
severe, and man could bear the oppression no longer, and tried 
to east it off, he has ever been met with the cry of Babel to God's 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 277 

authority, which must be enforced with the point of the bayo- 
net. The Pope has oppressed and all but destroyed poor Italy 
with the authority of the Bible. When the tyrant of Russia 
held his iron heel on the neck of my own poor, prostrate native 
land, Poland, he brought tlie same authority. When with the 
iron rod, that terrible thing called a scepter, said to have 
been given from heaven, the usui-per sways the liberties and 
lives of millions, he brings good authority from the Bible. 
(Loud hissing.) Do you hiss the Bible, or Russia'? (Ap- 
plause.) My friends, a most terrible outrage has been per- 
petrated on poor humanity ; there never has been a heart 
broken, a tear drawn from the eye, a drop of blood from the 
human heart, nor a sigh of agony from the expiring victim, 
but the perpetrators of these horrid inhumanities have found 
authorities for it in the Bible. It is a sad reflection on man, 
that he could be so enslaved by the authority of a book. No 
one knows its origin, in itself the most unintelligible, un- 
reasonable, and inconsistent that could ever have been con- 
cocted by the mind of man. (Disturbance.) 

It is to be regretted that disorder takes the place of order ; 
but this confusion of acts proceeds from the confusion of mind, 
in consequence of the confusion of ideas taught by the Bible ; 
here is its source and its influence. The disorder of this book 
has filled man's mind with disorder, and when the mind is a 
chaos, how can his actions be order 1 What do we claint in 
this Protestant republic"? Why, only what it professes to 
guarantee to every one, namely, freedom of speech ; and look 
at the conduct of the believers and defenders of the Bible ; 
but their disorder and riot is the best argument they can bring 
in support of it. Martin Luther once received the same argu- 
ment from the Church of Rome. (Hisses.) Do you hiss 
Luther, or the Pope 1 (Applause.) Luther protested against 
the Church of Rome and her Bible ; he called her a harlot, a 
falsehood, a libel upon human nature, religion, and God ; he 
claimed the right of conscience and of private judgment ; we, 



278 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

too, claim it here. Since his time, Protestantism has gone on 
constantly protesting; we, too, protest against the right to 
shackle the mind and prevent private judgment and freedom 
of speech; our protest here is in consequence of the protest 
of Luther ; do you dislike it 1 Throw your minds back to 
that time and hiss him to your hearts' content. (Applause 
and hissing, and drumming of feet and canes.) 

According to the Bible in the hands of the Pope, there is no 
freedom of opinion, no variety of sects, no private judgment ; 
his Bible tells him only to subject human rights, reason, and 
judgment to his despotic rule. (Applause and hisses.) Pro- 
testantism professes to give freedom of conscience and of 
speech. Make your choice between the Church of Rome anii 
Protestantism, and abide by it. (Tremendous applause and 
hissing.) And 'yet the Bible, as a history of the past — as 
reminiscences of other times and people — would be interest- 
ing enough, provided it was not palmed upon us as a guide 
for our age and time ; as well might you force a man, at forty, 
to wear his swaddling clothes, because they were once fit for 
him. The time I trust will come — is already at hand — when 
the Bible, like any other book, will be subjected to the test 
of reason, the light of knowledge and of truth, and by that 
test either stand or fall, and every man will adopt what appears 
to him good, and reject what appears to him bad and incon- 
sistent. But on account of its having been forced on man as 
an infallible rule of life, it has been more instrumental to 
keep him in ignorance, degradation, and vice, to prevent his 
elevation and development, to produce war, slavery, intemper- 
ance, and all the evils that afflict the race, than any and all 
the books that have ever been concocted by man. (Renewed 
hissing, indecent expressions, and disturbance.) All this does 
not disturb me nor ruffle my temper; it is only an additional 
evidence to me of the pernicious influence of the Bible. This 
is a practical illustration of it. I have stood more than this in 
opposing error, and I can stand this. It inspires me with no 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 279 

other feeling than pity and commiseration for such irration- 
ality ; but it is late, and I had better save my voice ; it may be 
wanted to be raised in the same holy cause at some other 
time. (Applause and hissing in the gallery.) To you, my 
sisters, I would but say, that the defenders of the Bible have 
given you a most practical evidence of the rights and liberties 
Christianity has conferred upon you. The Bible has enslaved 
you, the churches have been built on your subjugated necks ; 
do you wish to be free? Then you must trample the Bible,- 
the church, and the priests under your feet. 

Mrs. Rose took her place amidst deafening applause, hisses, 
and confusion. The Convention then adjourned to half-past ten 
o'clock, Sunday morning, June 5th. 

While the audience were retiring, Miss Mandock sang and 
played a beautiful air, " God Speed the Right," which senti- 
ment seemed to be a profanity to the disturbers, for taking 
their places in the gallery above the singers, they groaned out 
music chat would have disgraced Bedlam, or some nether 
regions with which they seemed to be so familiar. 



FOURTH DAY-MORNING SESSION. 

Sunday^ June 5, 

Pursuant to adjournment, the Convention was called to 
order at half-past ten o'clock, by the President, Mr. Barker, 
of Ohio, when — 

Rev. Mr. Turner and Mr. Cummings, of Boston, both 
claiming the floor at on-ce, the President decided that Mr. 
Cummings should have the floor ; when — 

Rev. Mr. Turner appealed from the decision of the Presi- 
dent, whose decision was sustained by the Convention. 



280 PEOCEEDINaS OF THE 

Mr. CuMMiNGS then made a few remarks, whose irrelevancy 
forbids their insertion. 

Mr. Andrew J. Davis then made the following speech : 

The subject before this Convention has as yet only been 
broached. The people begin to see that there is much honesty, 
good-will, and fine spirit invested on both sides, the traditional 
and the natural, the supernatural and the rational. Both sides 
have talented men — honest men and women ; both sides have 
honest men and women as recipients. This has been fairly 
enough indicated in this meeting, and this Convention has but 
served the purpose to show simply the fulcrum on which will be 
placed the lever by which the future generations shall be moved, 
and by which the great work of reform shall go forward. 

In this discourse I will try to bring forward, as much as 
possible, what seems to me to be objections to the super- 
natural origin of the Bible. I can assure you, in conscience, 
that r am speaking of that I know, speaking up to the light 
and knowledge which is within, and I am determined to get 
all the knowledge I can. I will not promise to believe to- 
morrow what I believe to-day, for I may know more. I shall 
simply state to you what I have thus far learned. I may 
know more, and when I have an opportunity I will tell you 
that also. 

All True Religion is immutable. I wonder that any one 
can for a moment imagine the possibility of its overthrow. 
Is truth a mere circumstance ? Do clouds and storms extin- 
guish the sunl Is true religion dependent for its existence 
upon belief or disbelief — upon forms and organizations 1 

O ye of little faith ! Go by the ocean's side, and behold 
far away the rock of ages. The storm-king sends his servants 
to battle. The clouds assemble, thunder answers thunder, 
from the four corners of heaven the elements rush to one cen- 
ter, and the fierce tempest descends with all the pageantry of 
contending deities. The ocean groans with the voice of anger, 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 281 

mountainous waves roll forward with a mighty power ; but 
amid all, and above all, stands yon noble Rock, erect, un- 
moved, and unchanged. Ten thousand times ten thousand 
storms may rage beneath, around, above — ages upon ages 
may roll away — empires may rise and kingdoms fall — mil- 
lions of human beings may come and go — the terrestrial ball 
may pursue its pathway about the parent orb ; yet, unshaken 
and immovable stands the True Religion — firm as the uni- 
verse — beautiful as Deity. 

You who fear or hope that religion will be extinguished, 
need wisdom ; go, study the constitution of the world. Con- 
template the ROCK in the ocean, which no storms nor conten- 
tion can disturb. Gaze at the sun, whose life-giving glories 
no clouds nor tempests can ever diminish ! 

But where shall we find this religion which changes not ? 
Ah ! here is the question. And when we become acquainted 
with its locality, how shall we Icnow that it is the " true re- 
ligion V What is the rock 1 The answer may be found in 
the New Testament : " The kingdom of Heaven is within 
you." That is to say, the law and the spirit — the way, truth, 
and life — are natural to the soul of man. Yea, religion has a 
rock in the soul. In its elements and essences, in its inextin- 
guishable instincts and unfolding faculties, which are true pro- 
phets and true apostles — in these find we the true religion. 
If this position be not tenable — if the mind of man is not the 
basis of true religion — then is God a respecter of persons, 
partial in his dealings, and the New Testament answer must 
be a fallacy. 

We hear much lamentation concerning the fate of the Bible. 
In most minds, religion and the book are one and inseparable. 
" They must stand or fall together !" But I can not think so. 
Can not a man exist without a shadow ? Are symbols essen- 
tial to the existence of thought ? Surely the letter and the 
spirit are not indissoluble ! If they are, then well may we 
lament and deplore any examination of the Bible. 



282 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

The idea that the Bible is the infallible word of God — that 
it is the Rock of Ages, that m it \s only to be found the true 
religion — is fatal to itself. There is a prevailing stiperstition, 
generated by commentators, that the Old and New Testaments 
are intrinsically and extrinsically harmonious. When the 
whole volume is correctly understood (they assert), the beauty 
and stupendous unity of the system is clear as the sun in the 
heavens. But this assumption is made by persons who have 
the presumption to suppose that ihcT/ have seen the harmonies 
of the Scriptures. 

Let us reflect on this. The assumption is that the Bible is 
the word of God — a supernaturally-originated and a supernat- 
urally-inspired volume — given to man for his enlightenment 
-and salvation. And yet, according to the Protestant system 
of private judgment and liberty of conscience, each mind, 
though uninspired and in no manner supernaturally"^endowed, 
is left to read and find out the meaning of God in this word. 
While one man finds the Bible infallible, another finds it falli- 
ble — one discovers it to be harmonious, another inharmonious ; 
and so comes contention and criticism. I can not but admire, 
in bold contrast, the beautiful logical consistency of the Roman 
Catholic Church. It never was guilty of trusting religion to 
the people — never committed a deed so fatal to priestly des- 
potism as that of permitting an w;isupernatural laity to read 
and interpret a supernatural book ! The reading of the hooJc is 
fatal to the idea of its supernatural origin, also to its so-called 
infallible principles of religion and truth. When will Protest- 
ants fully realize their present situation 1 

Protestants must certainly see, sooner or later, that the 
door which Martin Luther opened can never be shut against 
the onward march of the free-born soul ! The infallibility of 
the Pope is but a continuation of the Protestant idea of the 
infallibility of Moses, John, or Paul. If you admit the sup- 
position of the possibility of IsaiaWs infallible inspiration, you 
have then granted the premises upon which Pope-and-Priest 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 283 

infallibility is predicated. If God saw proper ever to inspire 
supernaturally a Jew or a dweller of Palestine, how do you 
know but he also sees it proper to supernaturally inspire a 
Cardinal or a Pope 1 If God has ever inspired a paper and 
pasteboard book, how do; you know but that he now inspires 
the Roman Catholic Church? If you admit the one, there is 
no escape from the other. As believers in the supernatural 
inspiration of the Bible writers, you are, according to every 
principle of logical deduction, constrained to admit the possi- 
bility of all which the Catholic Church claims for itself. 

But Luther, I say, in protesting against the authority of the 
Pope, opened a door for the final rejection of the book-author- 
ity upon which the first is based. Pio Nono is as likely to be 
a chosen vessel of God now, as Paul was in the beginning of 
the Christian era. The superiority of the character of one 
man over that of another is of no account where supernatural 
transactions are involved in the premises. Therefore I affirm 
that the Protestant idea of an infallible Bible writer is the firm 
foundation of Popish despotism, and oi all the absurdities of 
the Catholic institution. 

Persuade me that the paper and pasteboard Bible is the in- 
fallible word of God, and I will at once accept the brick-and- 
mortar church as the recipient and emporium of his divine 
favors. Persuade me that Moses, Joshua, Solomon, David, 
Isaiah, Matthew, John, and Paul were in vqyj truth the chosen 
vessels or penmen of the Supreme Being, and I promise you 
that I will at once accept, and would demonstrate conclusively 
from your principles, that the unbroken chain of cardinals and 
popes, extending from Peter the First to the kingdom of 
heaven, are as certainly the attorneys of Jehovah, and as being 
indispensable to all temporal and spiritual government and 
civilization. If Moses and Joshua and Paul are to be my 
masters in those sacred principles which bind my soul to its 
Author, then why may I not accept Pio Nono as my master 
and father in spiritual things 1 You, who are Protestant be- 



284: PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

lievers in Bible infallibility, can not deny me this logical infer- 
ence. But you reply that I should not allow a mere man to 
rule over my conscience — that it is yielding my liberty to the 
jurisdiction of despots, and placing my soul in the keeping of 
mere priests and teachers of religion. Verily ; but what are 
you Protestants doing, when you take Moses and Paul for 
your masters? Surely these were mere men also — manifest- 
ing all the attributes and characteristics of humankind — and 
so, why should they, any more than Clement or Alexander, 
be my masters in the affairs of my soul? 

Dr. Orestes A. Brownson, editor of a Catholic Quarterly 
Review, a man of much learning and independence, is a very 
consistent and faithful exponent of religious aims and tenden- 
cies. He has traveled from Egypt, through the wilderness of 
skepticism, into the promised land of belief, which he is now 
preparing to rid of all Protestants by logical weapons. Pro- 
testants advocate the supreme authority of the Bible, but tol- 
erate to each man the liberty of reading its pages to suit 
himself. Brownson, on the other hand, advocates the absolute 
supremacy of the Pope, and denies to man any rights. God 
only has rights. Man has duties. The Church is God's rep- 
resentative, and society is under its exclusive dominion. The 
Church grants privileges to governments, and governments 
owe allegiance and obedience to the Church. Now, this is 
nothing less than theological or Protestant despotism, logi- 
cally and legitimately carried into practice. But how much 
better than this is the Popery or clerical dogmas of Protest- 
ants! The Bible is God's representative or word, they 
affirm. The individual has no rights, but duties ; mind is not 
the master, but the subject of its teachings. The Pope re- 
gards all as heretics who reject his authority ! The Protestant 
denounces all as infidels who reject the authority of Moses ! 
The idea is simply this: Protestantism is but a child of 
Catholicism. By a law of hereditary descent, the parent 
transmits its character to the offspring ; but, as evidence of a 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 285 

law of.progress, the child is not so wicked and degraded as 
its venerable progenitor. 

Catholics make no more opposition to Free Schools, where- 
by education may be extended to all people, ^than do Protest- 
ants to t\iQ free discussion of the Bible, whereby truth may be 
elicited and transmitted to posterity. In regard to Free 
Schools, we quote from Dr. Brownson : 

" Our enemies rely upon Godless schools — State education 
— as a means of checking the progress of Catholicity. We 
must admit they have laid their plans with infernal skill. 
The result will not meet their anticipations, however ! The 
attention of the Catholic world has been directed to this sub- 
ject by those whom God has sent to rule over us, and a 
struggle^ which will end in victory for the Church, has begun 
between Catholicity and the State, to see who shall have the 
child." 

So speaks 0. A. Brownson concerning Free Schools. But 
observe, when you read Protestant notices of this Bible Con- 
vention, that, by substituting the word "convention" for 
schools, with one or two other alterations, you will see the 
same spirit manifested toward us. Indeed, it is hard to de- 
termine which is the worst enemy of freedom and humanity. 
The party that would make the Church our master, or those 
who would give to us the Bible as a sovereign, with only 
feeble reason to comprehend and harmonize its multifarious in- 
consistencies. Reason is feeble only after having been for a 
lifetime subject to bondage. Protestant denunciation of Rea- 
son is paralleled by Catholic defamation of Protestantism; 
the opinions of the two parties are equally valueless. 

Father Gavazzi comes to our country, and lifts up his elo- 
quent voice against the despotisms and abominations of the 
Romish Church. But he is in bondage, and can do nothing 
more than delight a Protestant audience. He can not do the 
" work of destruction," because he stands intrenched in Prot- 
estantism^ which deserves the same fate. He cries out against 



286 PROCEEDINGS OP THE 

the ignorance, the idolatry, the slavery of Catholicity ; but 
against Protestant ignorance, idolatry, and slavery his voice 
can not be raised, because the receivers of his messages are 
composed of the latter party. He affirms that Catholicism is 
too narrow for his soul. With a soul so expanded beyond the 
circumscribed confines of Pius the Ninth, I wonder how he 
can breathe the confined air of Protestant bigotry and super- 
stition 1 I can see no difference between the infallibility of 
the Pope and the infallibility of Paul. But we hd^vQ political 
freedom under Protestantism, which the Church of Eome 
denies to its subjects. Very true ; but how came this bless- 
ing ? It was first established through the instrumentality of 
the greatest despot, Henry VIII., that ever ruled over man- 
kind. But in our blessed land let us raise the hymn of grati- 
tude to Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Eranklin, and many others, 
who were the sworn friends of liberty and of free principles. 
Let it be remembered that the political and o^Aer blessings of 
America are not owing to any exertions on the part of priests, 
nor to any logical application of the doctrine of Bible infallir 
bility, upon which Protestantism rests. 

In a recent letter to the clergy of all denominations I affirmed 
that the Battle of the Evidences of Christianity is to be fought 
on the broad field of scientific and positive principles. The 
old metaphysical ground of idealistic impossibilities — such as 
what and where is God ■? what and where is spirit 1 what and 
where is heaven 1 are now scarcely admitted into the arena. 
But the mountain torrent of civilization has dashed along re- 
gardless of religious and mythical obstructions, and with each 
succeeding wave there comes to our land a new discovery in 
some department of creation. The progress of scientific dis- 
covery, in one brilliant day, is carrying the war into the very 
heart of biblical authority. The positive and unavoidable de- 
ductions of astronomy, of ethnology, of archaeology, of hie- 
rology, of physiology, stand in startling opposition to nearly 
all the assumptions of popular theology pertaining to Bible 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 287 

infallibility. I will presently bring this fact more distinctly 
before the reader. 

The scientific education of the Protestant clergy is so ut- 
terly neglected, while preparing for the ministry, that they 
usually enter the field of labor without the proper implements 
of spiritual husbandry. Consequently, having read the stand- 
ard works on theology, and one or two books in reply to " in- 
fidel objections," the young minister is apt to entertain sever- 
al inflated notions respecting the perfection of biblical wisdom. 
Sometimes we hear them preach thus: "The Bible has stood 
the test of ages. No closeness of inspection, keenness of 
investigation, or stricture of criticism has been able to defeat 
its claims. Moses' account of creation is simple and sublime. 
The volume of destiny is suddenly thrown open ; time is pro- 
claimed ; creation arises ; and a new race of intelligence ap- 
pears on the scene. Nothing can shake the plain narrative of 
Moses. The Bible is perfect in all its parts — full of excel- 
lences — and, taken as a whole, is without contradiction or in- 
consistency." 

Most congregations accept this as a tenable doctrine. 
Children grow up with this conviction, and so the Protestant 
notion of Bible infallibility is kept alive and before the peo- 
ple. But now is the time to investigate these positions, be- 
cause never before was the world so full of scientific discovery. 

In the light of the nineteenth century, the Mosaic account 
is notoriously unsound and fallible. We have a vast number 
of cogent reasons for rejecting the divine authority of Genesis. 
Let me ask your attention to a few of them. 

First. "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." 
There are several philosophical objections to the truth of this 
statement. It is found that matter, though changeable, is in- 
destructible — not a particle can be put out of existence. 
Chemists have tried the experiment in vain. Hence Nature 
declares that matter is eternal substance, and could not have 
sprung from nothing. The creation of matter implies the 



PEOCEEDIN&S OF THE 

bringing of something into existence from notlmig, which prop- 
osition no healthy mind can for a moment entertain. Here 
is one reason why we object to the Mosaic account. 

Second. "And God divided the light from the darkness. 
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called 
Night." Aside from the supernatural operation here implied, 
there are very strong scientific objections to this statement. 
But first let us notice the internal contradiction. You will 
observe that there were three days and three nights before God 
put " lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day 
from the oiighty Before the creation of a " greater light to 
rule the night," how, let me ask, could there have been " even- 
ings and mornings." But this objection is trivial in compari- 
son to the followins: : 

It is asserted that "darkness was upon the face of the 
deep" — that God said, " Let there be light, and there was 
light" — implying the absence at first of all light from the uni- 
verse. This is in direct antagonism to all the positive discov- 
eries of the age. " The celebrated speculation of La Place, 
now very generally received as probable by astronomers, con- 
cerning the origin of the earth and planets, participates essen- 
tially in the strictly inductive character of modern theory. 
The speculation is, that the atmosphere of the sun originally 
extended to the present limits of the solar system ; from which, 
by the process of cooling, it has contracted to its present di- 
mensions. There is in La Place's theory," says Mill, in his 
system of Logic, " nothing hypothetical ; it is an example of 
legitimate reasoning from a present effect to a past cause, ac- 
cording to the known laws of that cause." Science demon- 
strates that first, heat, light, and electricity were in existence 
before the earth was formed ; but Genesis makes the earth to 
exist previous to light ! Nature and the Old Testament are 
here at war with each other. Which shall we believe 1 

Third. The Mosaic account is unsound, because it teaches 
that the heavens and earth, and all that in them is, were made 



HAKTFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 289 

all 'perfect at once. "The Almighty voice is addressed to 
chaos. Confusion hears it, and wild uproar stands ruled. 
The waters subside; the verdant landscape is seen; songs 
burst from every grove ; and stars, bright, rolling, and silent- 
beaming, are hurled forth from the Almighty hand." And 
Genesis also affirms that man was more pure, perfect, and 
wise — more in unity with heaven and its Author — than the 
race is to day ! 

In absolute refutation of all this, how explicit are the posi- 
tive declarations of universal nature ! The first types of 
vegetation, the first indications of animal life, the first things 
performed or invented by mankind, were rough, crude, incom- 
plete, and in every respect inferior to after developments 
All things — trees, fish, birds, animals — grow from incomplete- 
ness to perfection, from rudeness to refinement, from the im- 
perfect to the beautiful. And must all the declarations of 
Nature be overruled by the authority of a book whose origin 
is Eastern and mythical ! 

Fourth. We object to Genesis because of another internal 
contradiction. The book asserts that " God saw every thing 
that he had made, and, behold, it was very goody If God saw 
every thing^ and pronounced every thing good^ let me ask : 
Who made the wicked serpent that tempted Eve? If this 
animal was more subtile than any beast of the field — having 
the devil in him — who created them % Who was it that made 
and pronounced every thing good? 

Fifth. Genesis can not be a true report of creation, because 
instead of coinciding with the revelations of universal nature, 
which prove the gradual formation of the globe by a cooling- 
ofF process, the progressive introduction or development of 
plants and animals on its surface by a natural method of 
growth, the account teaches the particular, the sudden, the 
miraculous, the incomprehensible creation of every thing in 
six literal days. 

Sixth, Genesis can not be a true report, because it contra- 
18 



290 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

diets the positive declarations of Astronomy. According to 
our system of chronological calculation, Moses makes the 
heavens and the earth about six thousand years old. But 
astronomy declares that light requires three hundred thousand 
years to travel from one of the fixed stars to our earth ! This 
one fact alone proves that those orbs have been in existence 
three hundred thousand years ! But you answer, " that all 
things are possible with God." Paul denies this (Heb. vi. 
18), and affirms by two immutable things it is possible for 
God to lie. In this I believe with he apostle ; for I can not 
think that the Spirit of this beautiful universe is capable of an 
inconsistency ! 

Seventh. Genesis can not be a true report, because it be- 
littles our ideas of God. The extent and grandeur of the 
universe, the resplendent objects and countless assemblages 
which people the empire of being, cleanse and purify the mind 
of all contracted notions of the Deity and his government. 
But Moses destroys all consistent ideas of an omnipresent 
energizing Spirit, by describing him as a man making the 
universe in six days, and, being fatigued, as resting on the 
seventh ; and not only so, but as " walking in the garden in 
the cool of the day" — as any common Egyptian god would be 
supposed to do — with hands and feet, and a limited power of 
vision. " Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence 
of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Spirit. And au 
omniscient Being, unable to find the guilty pair among the 
trees of the garden, began to call unto Adam : " Where art 
thou "?" And after the creation was getting along altogether 
too fast and wickedly for the Creator, then, again, like an 
Egyptian god (Gen. vi. 6), " it repented the Lord that he had 
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." 
Now all this is vastly too human and insignificant to be ap- 
plied to the omniscient Spirit of this Universe. Every man, 
Christian or Pagan, when in his right mind, totally rejects the 
narrow and cramping idea of God advocated in the book of 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTIOK. 291 

Genesis, and elsewhere. "A universe," says Rev. Thomas 
Dick, " vast, boundless, and incomprehensible, is just such as 
we ought naturally to expect from a Being who is infinite, 
eternal, and omnipresent ; whose power is uncontrollable, 
whose wisdom is unsearchablcj and whose goodness is bound- 
less and diffusive. All his plans and operations must be, like 
himself, vast, boundless, and inconceivable by mortals." Now 
I submit that this idea is not applicable to the Mosaic God of 
creation 1 

Eighth, The most advanced thinkers among the supporters 
of the Mosaic theory have, as I am fully aware, made a virtue 
of necessity, by abandoning the idea oi six literal days of crea- 
tion, and accepting, instead, the geological interpretation of 
epochs or "ages." The most learned of modern Christian 
writers say, that the term " evening and the morning" must be 
accepted figuratively to mean the " ending and beginning" of 
indefinite stages of creative development. Very well ; there 
can be no objection to putting a little new wine in an old 
bottle, if therefore the wine will but be more acceptable to 
creatures of habit. But here comes a trouble of inconsistency. 
If we are now to receive the six days as figurative^ how shall 
we regard the seventh day^ On which the Lord rested 1 If the 
six days signify " ages," what does the seventh day mean ? 
Why are we inconsistently and hypocritically keeping one day 
in each common week as the day hallowed by the repose of 
Deity, while, in our theory, we are compelled to accept the 
six days as uncertain, immeasurable, indefinite strides of crea* 
tive development ? Here, again, the positive principles and 
deductions of a philosophical theology stand in direct antag- 
onism to the accounts of Moses. 

There are before my mind eighteen other reasons, all equally 
cogent, going to invalidate the divine authority and intrinsic 
correctness of the very first chapters in King James' Bible. 
But we will let them pass, and ask attention to the origin of 
those chapters. 



S92 PEOCEEDINaS OF THE 

It is a singular and significant fact, that there is not a line 
in Egyptian history alluding to the existence or prodigies of 
Moses. The Egyptians were a cultivated people. Like a 
chain of mountains, their wonderful pyramids extend far be- 
hind the period set to Noah's fiood^ without so much as men- 
tioning such a marvelous catastrophe or event. Recent 
ethnological discoveries carry us into the remote past, or 
eight thousand years from the present time, making the Egyp- 
tian nation, with signs of the existence of a still riper civiliza- 
tion previously, two thousand years older than Moses sets to 
the creation of man. The hierologist is sustained by Chinese 
records, and the later of geologic sciences. 

And, what is still more remarkable, the thrilling, mythic, 
and simple orphic sayings and verses of Egypt, Syria, Asia 
Minor, and Greece are, in conception and mostly in phrase- 
ology, identical with the first part of the book of Genesis. 
And when the hieroglyphic characters of Egypt, Tartary, and 
Africa shall have been perfectly deciphered, it will be found, 
I think, that the cosmologic and demonologic relations of 
Moses were in existence nearly two thousand years before such 
a people as the Jews had begun to be. These discoveries, how- 
ever, will be tardily introduced, because every traveler and 
antiquarian knows that he is writing books to be read by 
Protestant and sectarian readers. 

Eichard, in his work on Egyptian mythology, repudiates 
the idea that Moses was inspired to write the Pentateuch. He 
says : " The five books of Moses carry with them internal evi- 
dence, not of one sole, connected, original composition, but 
they bear evideace of being a compilation from earlier annals. 
The geneological tables and family records of various tribes, 
that are found embodied in the Pentateuch, bear the appear- 
ance of documents copied from written archives. They display 
no trait which might lead us to ascribe their production to the 
dictates of immediate revelation." The first ten chapters of 
Genesis, which contain an account of creation, are nearly 



i 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 293 

two thousand years older than the Jewish nation. The pyra- 
mids and obelisks of Egypt, and the hieroglyphic records on 
the land of Tartary, will, when fairly brought to the light, re- 
veal the Oriental parentage of the books of Moses. 

Perhaps you think me too far in advance of discovery. 
The celebrated Mr. Gliddon, in his carefully written work on 
"Ancient Egypt," says, "There is no reason for supposing 
that other cotemporary nations* did not possess, in those ear- 
lier times, similar records ; nor is there any reason why other 
cotemporary nations should not have chronicled all great 
events, and handed down, as far as ourselves, some of the an- 
nals of those events on which the Bible, during an interval of 
four hundred years^ is strictly silent." Two books, one en- 
titled the "Wars of Jehovah," and the other "Sepher- 
Hajasher," have been found, which our Bible does not con- 
tain. How came these omissions ? 

Intelligent Christians acknowledge that the present anti- 
quated mode of biblical interpretation can not withstand the 
positive deductions of all the sciences and discoveries of the 
age. Eegarded as a record of physical events, the Mosaic his- 
tory can not be sustained. Hence many minds are driven 
into spiritual or symbolic interpretation. The creation of the 
world, the garden of Eden, the temptation and fall, the deluge 
and tower of' Babel, are received by many as symbolic rela- 
tions — as types of spiritual experience and events — referring* 
equally to nations and individuals. Swedenborg, distinguish- 
ed for his historic and scientific knowledge, declares, in his 
commentary on the Jewish Testament, that these events and 
accounts can be understood and supported only in a figurative 
or spiritual sense — implying that a literal view of them, as 
entertained by New England clergy and laity, is at once ab- 
surd, untenable, and unsupportable by nature, reason, intui- 
tion, and history. It would consume our time to present 

* That is, nations existing at the time of the Israelites. 



2M PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Swedenborg's science of correspondences — ^but enough is ad- 
duced to show what reasonable men and scholars think of the 
Mosaic account. Swedenborg affirms that the early Scriptures 
were written in correspondential language, of which the hiero- 
glyphic scriptures of earth are vestiges. Every figure symbol- 
ized some particular idea. Thus, as some writer remarks, a 
beetle did not stand for a beetle only, but also for the world ; 
an asp corresponded to royalty ; the eagle, to courage ; the 
lion, to strength ; a rant's head, to intellect ; a duck, to a doc- 
tor of medicine ; and a goose, to a doctor of divinity. 

The idea that the Bible is a connected whole — without con- 
tradiction or inconsistency — is a superstition of the Protestant 
priesthood. The intelligent and accomplished Jesuit enter- 
tains no such untenable opinion. He depends upon the ex- 
ternal despotisms of organization, and upon the attractions of 
a well-regulated and venerable ecclesiasticism, for the success 
of his design upon the religious liberties of humanity. Prot- 
estantism and Catholicism deserve the same condemnation. 
They differ, not in the character of their notions respecting in 
fallibility, but in degree only. 

The Catholic idea of Pope and Church infallibility is simply 
an elongation or extension of the Protestant idea of Old and 
New Testament infallibility. 

The two parties are, in theory and theology, equally /o^5 to 
13ie interests and liberties of the world. And I have shown, I 
think, that one should not be allowed to impose any more re- 
strictions on the soul of man than the other — that is to say, 
neither is good enough to merit the support of intelligent, be- 
nevolent, free, and conscientious minds. 

Have I said any thing against true religion? Because I re- 
ject the infallibility of Paul and the Pope— the infallibility 
of a book and a church — am I therefore irreligious 1 The Old 
Testament is a statement of the ideas and events of the Patri- 
archal Age — the era of Force ; the New Testament is a state- 
ment of the ideas and events of the Transitional Age — the era 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 295 

of Love ; the two. combined, formed King James' Bible. But 
let me ask — why should the statement of one age remain the 
statement of all ages 1 

Can religion be based on a book 1 This idea has obtained 
among Christians ; hence they imagine the heathen to be be- 
nighted, and loithout religion ! Is God a respecter of persons 
or nations 1 Far from it. True religion, like true anatomy 
and physiology, is older than books'? Tiiere must be a re- 
ligion older than the Bible ; a God better than it declares. 

Did Newton learn astronomy in books % Did Jesus learn 
intuition and love of all human kind from the prophets ? Is 
there no inexhaustible fountain from whose flowing rivulets 
each soul may freely drink 1 Does the same God not always 
inspire and nourish ? What would ye think of a man who 
does all his farming^ plowing, and planting, by reading books 
on Egyptian and Roman agriculture? The land before his 
eyes would meanwhile grow thorns and unwholesome vegeta- 
tion. What, then, do ye think of Christians who bid their 
followers to read and believe King James' version of the Testa- 
ments, to the end that they may be religious and acceptable 
unto God 1 He who would not " be wise above what is writ- 
ten" (in any book) is a miserable pagan, engaged in blindly 
loving his ideals, and needs philosophic culture. For is there 
not a law, a science, a principle of justice and equity in man's 
mental economy, sviyerior to all writing 1 Let every son and 
daughter of nature be developed to the fullness of the structure 
of the perfect man — let society develop the kingdom of Justice 
and Freedom within each soul and family — then you will see 
a manifestation of true religion. 

Mr. Davis' address was listened to throughout with marked 
attention. 

The Convention then adjourned to half-past two o'clock, p.m. 



^9Q PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 



FOURTH DAY-AFTERNOON SESSION. 

» 

Sunday, June 5ih, 
The Convention having been called to order, 
Eev. Mr. Storks came forward and said : 
It may be proper for me to state at the outset, that I do 
not stand here, and have not stood here at any part of this 
discussion, to plead that every word in the Bible was given by 
inspiration. No such gi-ound have I taken. I take the Bible 
to be a record, by faithful and trustworthy witnesses, of reve- 
lations that have been made by God to men, and of transac- 
tions connected with these revelations, and that the record of 
these transactions is not a matter of inspiration. The persons 
who recorded it recorded it in their own language, according to 
their understanding of it. Now, sir, in regard to the general 
charge, I, at the outset of this discussion, called for the law by 
which the Bible was to be judged, and so far at least as it re- 
lated to my friend Wright and myself, it was settled that 
natural religion, the religion of Nature, or the God of Nature, 
was the law by which the Bible was to be tried. Though we 
might have pressed that point further, we chose to stop at 
that point, and to meet our friend on that ground — his own 
ground — and to test the God of the Bible by the God of Na- 
ture. Even supposing the God of the Bible sanctioned those 
dreadful things which he (friend Wright) spoke of — which may 
be a question of itself — we have, in comparing the God of 
Nature with the God of the Bible, shown, at any rate, that 
the God of the Bible is no worse than the God of Nature, and 
therefore the God of the Bible can not be brought in guilty 
under the law by which he was to be tried. If it is pleaded 
that the God of the Bible sometimes acted one way and some- 
times another, we say that the God of Nature has acted in the 
same way. The God of Nature sometimes gives rain, waters 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 297 

the earth, refreshes it with cheering showers, and causes it to 
vegetate and bring forth ; and at other times the God of Na- 
ture withholds the rain, and the earth parches up, and man 
and beast suffer and languish for the lack of the necessaries of 
life. Then the God of Nature is equally as deficient in this 
respect as the God of the Bible, and is equally charged with 
acting two separate ways at different times. 

We might enlarge upon that contrast, but lest we should 
be charged with traveling over the ground again, we do not 
enlarge upon it. It has been insinuated, and something more 
than insinuated, that God — I suppose, of course, meaning the 
God of the Bible — had no right to take away man's life, ex- 
cept to transform him, as the caterpillar is transformed into a 
butterfly. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have heard of that cater- 
pillar transformation till to me it is worn threadbare. Sir, 
the caterpillar never did die, the life never was extinct ; enter 
into that caterpillar's bed, and I say that he has wound him- 
self for repose; put into that bed something which extinguishes 
life, and see if a butterfly will ever come out. Never. But, 
sir, our friend should have followed the butterfly a little 
further, and then the beautiful butterfly, after fluttering in the 
sun, and from flower to flower, dies ; and where is it now? 
Look at it lying in the street! where is hel emerged into 
some higher life ! If it has emerged into some higher life, the 
God of Nature has failed to reveal it. Yes, sir, and the God 
of Nature has failed to reveal that a son or daughter of the 
human family emerges into a higher life when once they die. 
We call upon you to bring a revelation of Nature that when 
a man dies he emerges into a higher state. Let us see the 
testimony, if they have it. Let it be forthcoming. The pagan 
philosophers, about whom so much has been Said, only specu- 
lated upon the subject. They never satisfied even their own 
minds, by their own confessions, only while they were in argu- 
ment. They thought it expedient to teach the doctrine to the 
vulgar multitude, because they could hold an influence over 

13* 



298 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

th?,m by it, while they themselves did not believe in this im- 
mortality ; and Bishop Whately has abundantly shown this 
in his work on the " Future States." 

Why, .sir, if the God of Nature has revealed the certainty 
that man lives after he is dead, I ask why it is that these re- 
cent developments, which are called "rapping spirits," have 
made their appearance? Is that the God of Nature, sir? 
This very resort to rapping spirits is an acknowledgment that 
the God of Nature reveals nothing in regard to man's future 
life. 

I shall now proceed to notice some few of the criticisms 
which have been made upon the Bible or the teachings of the 
Bible, and which have been urged upon the attention with 
great pathos, as showing that the Bible was as bad as the reso- 
lution says. Perhaps 1 may as well begin in i-elation to the 
attempt to prove from this Bible that the God of Nature has 
revealed the moral perfections of God. I have taken the 
ground that nature or natural religion goes no further in re- 
gard to the doctrines of God than that there is a God, or that 
there are Gods, one or many, possessed of great power and 
intelligence ; that the God of Nature does not reveal with any 
certainty to man's mind the moral perfections or character of 
that being or of those beings. An appeal has been made to 
our Bible which gives us to understand that if our Bible is 
true, my position is not true ; and if the Bible has taught a 
doctrine of that character, we are to conclude that nature does 
teach the moral perfections of God. We are referred to 
Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1st chapter: "Because that 
which may be known of God is manifest in them," or to 
them ; " for God hath showed it unto them, for the invisible 
things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made." What invisi- 
ble things are clearly seen 1 The moral perfections of God ? 
Are they clearly seen 1 Paul, what do you mean 1 " Even 
his eternal power and Godhead." That is just what I said. 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 299 

His being, his existence, his power and intelligence, it is clear, 
are manifested by natural religion, but beyond that the 
Apostle does not affirm that it goes, and he specified the very- 
points to which we referred. 

Next, sir, we have a criticism on the expression of our Lord 
in Mark xvi. 10 ; and if I am not mistaken that verse has been 
quoted uniformly alone, without regard to its context — with- 
out regard to any thing that is said in connection with it. 
The text, as quoted, is this : " He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ; he that believeth not shall be damned." 
This is brought as a charge against the Bible, as threatening 
the most terrible penalty for unbelief, when it is affirmed a 
man can not believe without evidence. Well, I shall not dis- 
agree with any on that point. I do not believe a man can 
believe without evidence; nor did the blessed Jesus require 
that any one should believe without evidence. He expressly 
declares, as a principle of his religion, that if he had not 
come and spoken unto them, then they had not had sin. Just 
look at the connection : "And he said unto them, go ye into 
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; he that believeth 
not shall be damned," or condemned. Why condemned? 
Because they did not believe arbitrarily, without evidence? 
No, sir. He directed his disciples to preach the gospel — good 
news — glad tidings — the gospel that the God of Nature never 
preached, and never can — the gospel of a future life by a 
resurrection from the dead. He told them to go and preach, 
and the apostles did go and preach that gospel. 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the proclamation, the glad 
tidings to a benighted world, that the God of Nature has failed 
to enlighten, that there is another life, which may be obtained 
by the dying children of men ; and that that life is God'ft 
appointment through the Lord Jesus Christ, and by him and 
through him alone. These were the tidings to a dark world, 
speculating, unable to find out what was beyond the dark 



800 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

clouds of death. " God so loved the world that he gave his 
only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life." The God of Nature teaches 
no such principle of self-revival. It remains for the glad tid- 
ings and good news of God to bring to view the possibility of 
obtaining immortality and eternal life. 

To talk, then, about an arbitrary command to believe without 
evidence, is talking wrongfully against the Bible. No, sir. 
I am free to admit, if you please, that the God of the Bible 
does appeal to man's reason ; and I am willing to even go a 
step farther, if my friends on the other side will like it better, 
and so far as to say that whatever may profess to be a reve- 
lation that contradicts palpably, plainly, true reason, is not a 
subject of belief. (Hear.) 

I notice another criticism which we have had on this occa- 
sion, which is in the 23d chapter of Matthew : " Then spoke 
Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The Scribes 
and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all therefore whatso- 
ever they bid you observe, that observe and do ; but do not 
ye after their works ; for they say, and do not." It is said 
here that our Lord Jesus Christ requires that whatever the 
Pharisees bid them observe and do, they were to do. Where 
did they sit 1 In Moses' seat. Then to the law and to the 
testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is be- 
cause there is no light in them. If the Scribes and Pharisees 
did not speak according to the law and to the testimony, 
Jesus never commanded them to obey them — never. There 
has been something said in the course of these remarks by 
our friends on the opposite side about the Mosaic priest- 
hood, about the corruptions of the Jewish priesthood, as 
if that were an argument against the religious institutions 
of Moses. I beg, right at this point, to be indulged with the 
privilege of reading a remark of Doctor McCulloh, in his 
work to which I have before referred. In the 1st volume of 
his work, page 209, he says : " Though the prophets always 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 801 

urged the nation in the most earnest manner to a strict ob- 
servance of the institutions of Moses, it is abundantly evident 
that they could not have formed any party with the priesthood ; 
for not only have they entirely abstained from commending 
the order, but their writings are full of censures and denunci- 
ations against them for transgressing the laws of Jehovah, and 
for failing in their moral duties toward the nation at large. It 
is hardly necessary to remark that Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the 
only two prophets taken from the priestly tribe, are as ex- 
press in their censures of the priesthood as other prophets." 
He adds, in a note, " Collins, the Deist, was so much struck 
with the amount of censure cast by the prophets upon the 
priesthood, that he terms them," — these prophets — " free-think- 
ers, not discerning that though the prophets censured the irre- 
ligion or the immorality of the priests when they had thus 
transgressed, yet they universally sustained the institutions of 
Moses in the most urgent manner, as being constitutions of 
Jehovah. However, the observation of this writer is import- 
ant ; for even his superficial examination of the prophetical 
writings was sufficient to show him that there could be no 
collusion between the prophets and the priesthood." 

These prophets, then, do denounce the corruption and wicked- 
ness of the priesthood, and denounce it so severely, that even 
this intelligent Deist was constrained to acknowledge there 
could be no collusion between them. But, sir, it has been 
said here, on this stand, that the Mosaic priesthood was a " con- 
temptible foolery." If I were disposed to retaliate — but I am 
not — I would say that another criticism that I am about to 
notice is a most " contemptible" criticism, but I won't use the 
word only as borrowed. 

The remarks which I am about to read, you will find ex- 
tracted from Dr. McCulloh, in his work, page 240. Dr. 
McCulloh says : " Lord Bolingbroke, however inimical to the 
theory of the divine constitution of Christianity, has not 
hesitated to render the clearest testimony to its excellent 



303 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

morality, as the following extracts from his writings will 
abundantly show. And his observations on the subject of 
theological teaching not only is creditable to his discernment, 
but does justice to the actual merits of Christianity, which 
most other Deists have endeavored to confound with the false 
teachings of men." 

That is just what is being attempted here. 

Lord Bolingbroke says in his 4th essay, section 5th: "The 
gospel teaches universal benevolence, recommends the precepts 
of it, and commends the observance of it in particular in- 
stances occasionally, always supposes them, always enforces 
them, and makes the law of right reason a law in every pos- 
sible definition of the word beyond all cavil. I saij beyond 
all cavil, because a great deal of silly cavil has been employed 
to perplex the plainest things in nature, and the best deter- 
mined signification of words according to the different occa- 
sions on which they were used." 

He makes the law of right reason a law in the definition of 
the word, " beyond all cavil.^^ There, sir, I believe in Lord 
Bolingbroke's right-reason observation. 

That is a noble sentiment; I take delight in praising it, 
coming from a man called a Deist. He was a man that reject- 
ed the Bible as a revelation, but was a believer in God. 

I will read another extract from the same author. He says : 
" The gospel of Christ is one continued lesson of the sti'ictest 
morality, of justice, of benevolence, and of universal charity." 

Is such the testimony we have heard in this place from the 
followers of Lord Bolingbroke? I hardly dare say followers. 
No, sir. The Bible has been attacked by " silly cavil." It 
has been attempted by such a cavil to show that the Lord 
Jesus condemned even the desire of marriage. We come 
now to that text as recorded in the 5th chapter of Matthew, 
on w^hich the cavil or criticism was made : " Ye have heard 
that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit 
adultery ; but I say unto you, That whosoever lodketh on a 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 303 

woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her 
already in his heart." It was said here (by Mr. Wright), that 
Jesus declared that whosoever looketh on a woman to desire 
her for his wife was an adulterer. I call that a " silly caviiy 
We will not call it " a contemptible foolery." It is a per- 
version of the words of Jesus, as palpable as the shining of 
the noon-day sun. Turn with me, then, to the 19th chapter and 
3d verse : " The Pharisees also came unto Jesus, tempting him, 
and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his 
wife for every cause ? And he answered and said unto them, 
Have ye not read, that he who made them at the beginning, 
made them male and female ? For this cause shall a man 
leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they 
twain shall be one flesh ; wherefore they are no more twain, 
but one flesh ; what God hath joined together, let not man put 
asunder." I ask any intelligent man or woman in this congre- 
gation if we are not right in applying Lord Bolingbroke's ex- 
pression, " silly cavil," to such an interpretation of these 
words of Jesus as was given by persons on the opposite side 
of the question 1 

If I were defending a cause that needed such a cavil, I should 
certainly be led to believe that it was a doubtful one. (Ap- 
plause.) 

Eev. Mr. Turner — I would call the attention of the au- 
dience, Mr. Chairman, to some of the so-called arguments that 
have been brought against the Bible. We have only, at best, 
what may be deemed objections stated; but objections are 
not proofs. I do not make this remark with reference to 
every thing that is urged against the Bible, but as a whole. 
The character of the objections raised against the Bible is be- 
fore the audience. I need not advise you of their fallacy. 
The remarks of the lady, Mrs. Rose, last evening, and the re- 
marks of my friend Davis to-day, were but a repetition of 
what has been stated before from this stand, hence I shall not 
devote much time to the argument. It is true neither of 



304 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

these, nor yet both together, have covered all the ground ; for 
my friend the Chairman has covered more than twice as 
much ground as both those, so that it may not be expected 
that even in all the day we could take up all the objections 
that have been raised ; but by taking up the few, and the 
more important ones, we intend to show the character of all 
those objections, and we expect to make the impression on 
this audience, that as these objections are found sound or un- 
sound, so the others will be considered. 

The reason why I would not attack the remarks of Mrs. Rose, 
is not because she is a woman, but because I do not think she 
had a fair chance to speak. The lady stepped upon the same 
ground with the other speakers, repeating the points of the 
call, and then advanced to speak of the influence of the 
Scriptures, as bearing against the inspiration of the same, af- 
firming that the things which she charged upon their influence 
formed a reason, in her estimation and the estimation of 
others, why it should be rejected, and made remarks which I 
shall not now attempt to answer, for they have been answer- 
ed ; and I pass to her main position, which has also been an- 
swered by another. After several minor charges, the lady 
preferred the charge of injustice against the Bible, in the fact 
that the Bible, she contends, teaches the subjugation of woman. 
I am a friend to woman's rights, and I would not to-day stand 
before this audience to make the remarks that I am here in 
duty bound to make, but for the fact that the supposed " sub- 
jugation," as it has been called, "unjust and wicked sub- 
jugation of woman to man" by the Bible, is brought against 
the Bible, and against its sacred influence. 

It has been said that the Bible subjugates the woman to the 
man, even if he were a drunkard, and even if he were a 
novice. The other side of this matter was not only by the 
lady, but by the other speakers, left out of the question. The 
Bible does present — does set before you a husband. You 
heard thus much read from the sacred text. You heard the 



HAETFOED BIBLE C ON VEKT I ON" . 305 

duty and character of a husband and his position defined in 
the Bible. The Bible first defines the social position and 
duty of a husband — mark that — and then the same Bible re- 
quires a reciprocation of affection between the husband and 
the wife. The Bible requires that the husband and the wife, 
though twain in the beginning, shall become one flesh. Fur- 
ther, the Bible requires of the husband that he should love 
his wife as himself Now in how far does the Bible subjugate 
the woman to that man 1 That she shall love her hnsband. 
Said one speaker, " It is more than this : it requires that she 
should obey her husband;" and the lady, Mrs. Rose, seemed 
to think it a very cruel matter for a woman thus to be sub- 
jugated to obey such a husband. How much injury will 
such husbands do their wives if they obey them, and if they 
obey especially as directed, "even as Sarah obeyed Abra- 
ham"?" Now turn to the book and see how Sarah obeyed 
Abraham, and note if you can find any thing in the obedience 
rendered by Sarah to Abraham so wretched that a woman can 
not endure it any how. 

Mrs. Rose — Would you like to be placed in the same 
position as Sarah was when she had to obey her husband, 
when he took her maid-servant unto him for a second wife 1 
(Applause.) 

Rev. Mr. Turner — If I was a woman I would answer it. 
Where did the lady find that Sarah obeyed her husband in 
any thing of this kind ? In the affair to which the lady re- 
fers, Abraham obeyed Sarah, and she prayed him to obey 
her. Abraham was in turn subjugated to the will of Sarah. 

I said that I was not only the friend of woman, but entirely 
the friend of woman's rights. I speak just as I mean ; I say 
woman's rights^ but when woman becomes a man I will treat 
her as a man, but now I speak of her as a woman. 

Before passing from the question of the lady, I will simply 
say, that the record says that Sarah gave her servant to Abra- 
ham. What does the lady intend by her question 1 Does 



806 PROCEEDINGS OP THE 

she hope that we shall argue that it was right to do thus ? 
Does the lady, or do my friends here wish to enter upon a dis- 
cussion of the why and wherefore that these things were so 
done in that time? If they want to do this, we will let the 
record speak for itself on these matters, and tell why they 
were done. But if not, we will keep to the question in 
debate. 

I said, when woman becomes man she will have no charms 
for me, unless I can turn around and become woman ; woman 
is lovely only in her true sphere — she charms because she is 
woman. I go for the rights of woman, and the Bible goes for 
the rights of woman. The Bible has assigned woman her 
place in the most tender department of human life, and in- 
stead of putting her forth to breast the storms, dangers, suffer- 
ings, and turmoil of busy life in this lone world, the Bible has 
made her the bosom-companion of the man, to share his sor- 
rows, double his joys, to be cherished in his heart, and pro- 
tected and provided for by his more hardy body. 

Where are woman's rights defined % We were told that 
the Bible was inconsistent, because it enslaved woman, and 
one plea made on this point was, that "woman, from her 
position in life, had become tender and delicate, and therefore 
was not able to endure what she might otherwise endure ; but 
are there not those here who know that the very physiology 
of the female puts her sphere of action where the Bible places 
her % We know this as well as we know any other fact in the 
science of physiology. We know that the woman has had to 
be, of necessity, a woman^ and not a man. Look at her 
frame, look at the proportions of that organism, and you will 
see that the Bible has assigned her her proper place ; it se- 
cures her from the storms of life. 

Where jn the book of nature do we find any evidence 
against the Bible on account of the position in which the 
Bible has placed woman? Does the Bible make a drudge 
a slave of her % It assigns the woman a sphere just as we 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVEN^TION. 307 

have represented, and the Bible does not know her in any- 
other relation; and if she has fallen into other hands, and be- 
comes ill-treated, the Bible is not responsible for the ill- 
treatment. Does the natural religion of that man's head 
guide him right when he abuses the woman ? The Bible for- 
bids abuses of all kinds. You- will find the mother in the 
same relation in the family of ants, as you will find her in, in 
the family of human beings. Bring to your minds the various 
feathered tribes, and what does the book of nature teach you 
by an observation of them ? Do you not see the same re- 
lation there that you see sustained, and urged, and ordered in 
the BoQk of God 1 I am surprised somewhat at the remarks 
that have been made in regard to the subjugation of woman 
in the Bible. " Oh !" said one upon this stand, "the Bible is 
the enemy of woman, because it has subjugated her." It is 
compared with the Koran, with the Shaster — has actually 
been held up in. contempt when compared with the unwritten 
book of the red man of the forest. Let us go among these 
heathen tribes, and see how woman fares among the people 
where the Bible has never gone. How is it with the red 
men 1 Do they enslave their women ? How is it where the 
Koran has its influence ? How are women treated there 1 
One single fact and I must pass. It is on record, though the 
writer's name I can not repeat. He states, that as he passed 
on his journey, he saw a man plowing. Under the influence 
of the Koran he had his jack hitched upon the plow on one 
side, and his wife holding the other end of the yoke. Would 
the lady like to be there, where the Holy Scriptures have not 
shed their divine light 1 That is the way women are treated 
where the Bible has not come. 

Mrs. Rose — How are they treated in the South? 

Rev. Mr. Turner — The Bible does not come there ; but 
let the Bible come to the South, among the slaves, and woman 
will be exalted to her proper situation, and every bond of the 
slave will be knocked off. The Gospel is a universal law 



308 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

of charity and benevolence, revealed to the children of men. 
But look among those Avho are governed by the Shaster, and 
what is the picture there 1 Are not women enslaved there ? 
Are they not trampled down and degraded 1 Are they not 
made servants, worse, in many instances, than the most down- 
trodden Southern, slave ; whipped, parted, stoned, turned out 
of doors, and ill-treated in every way, because the man that 
has a woman, has a tiling under the influence of the Shaster, 
and he may do as he pleases with her? But the Bible says, 
" Husbands, love your wives as your own selves." Would the 
Turk, under such an influence, yoke up his wife 1 Sir, it is a 
blot on the M^isdom of the nineteenth century certainly, to 
hear a woman crying down the influence of the Bible, because 
it don't give woman her rights, or make her a man. Woman 
is indebted to the Bible for all she is in America above the 
wives of the red men of the forest. 

But T must pass. " The Bible," the lady said, " was cer- 
tainly made by imperfect men, and therefore must be imper- 
fect." Now I do not charge this remark upon this lady alone. 
I refer to her because others have heard her. Others have, 
upon this floor, made this remark. Please remember, it is 
argued by some, that the Bible must be brought to the stand- 
ard of human intellect alone — to the law of natural religion ; 
and when we press the question home and ask, " Where is 
it ?" some have said. It is in here. (Laying his hand on his 
breast.) They strike a little too low, that is all. A man 
does not think with his heart, he only feels the blood rush 
there when it comes back from the brain. But it has been 
said here, that the law is in the intellect of man. Now, if the 
Bible was written by imperfect men, and is therefore imper- 
fect — if natural religion is in the intellect of an imperfect 
man, how do we know about this God of Nature, what he is, 
and what he will do or be 1 Can he give a better revelation 
now than the same God could away back when our Bible was 
written ? Was the God of Nature then imperfect in the ema- 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 309 

nations through the human intellect ; and has he been growing 
wise 1 The question would then be a question of importance. 
When will he become a perfect God ? When w^ill he be- 
come unchangeable "? It is said here, by the lady and others, 
that we can teach children any thing we please. " You can," 
said she, " teach the child that black is white, and that white 
is black." Now, if we take her meaning, it is true, but in the 
abstract language it is untrue ; for when you have given a 
child to understand what is black and what is white, you can 
not teach that white is black and black is white. The only 
reason why we can not call black white is, because the law 
of colors has been established. As soon as you make the 
child familiar with the law, you can not make him believe 
that black is white and white is black. But suppose you can 
thus teach the child, what does it prove ? It proves that the 
God you find in the intellect can be bent any way, and you 
can shape the God to any form you please, so that the God 
of Nature, you see, would be formed by your own will and 
wishes. If all the human family were to be trained up in that 
manner, we would have a God pulling himself all to pieces ; 
for the mind, as of the mass, is running in every variety of 
direction. 

Another charge was made, viz., that " all the miseries and 
persecutions in times past have been originated by the Bible. 
There has not been a tear shed, not a sigh drawn, not a drop 
of blood shed, but that the authority for it has been found in 
the Bible." Well, now, it has been acknowledged upon this 
stand, and by my friend Wright, that the spirit of Christ was 
good ; not the principles, but the spirit of Christ was good, 
and that the first Christians were good and true ; though it is 
claimed that they were imperfect on the other side. Now is 
it true that the Bible, which formed the characters of those 
men, and formed them well, is to be chargeable for any de- 
partures from their course of life"? Shall we look back upon 
the path the Church has traveled, marked with the foot-prints 



810 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

of Christians, and those foot-prints set in blood, and charge 
it upon the Bible '? No, sir ; we confidently say, and are ready- 
to prove it, that the whole of this was in consequence of de- 
parting from the Bible. Why, had that monster (Popery) 
that has put to death three millions of the Church, opened the 
Bible and found her own character written there, do you think 
she would have been found murdering the saints 1 The law 
of the Lord was always before them, but have the Roman 
world taken the Bible as the man of their counsel"? Had 
they understood it, read, and digested it, do you think you 
•vyould have found them putting the saints to death 1 

Is the Bible chargeable for the tears that I have shed over 
the loss of friends, the tears that I have poured out at the 
graves of the companions of my youth, and my three little 
ones 1 Have those tears been drawn by the Bible? Has the 
Bible thus lacerated this heart, and opened it no more to be 
closed in this state of things'? Prove that, and I will spurn 
the Bible as I spurn death now ! But the trouble is here ; 
theology has made the Bible into death, and death into the 
Bible. It has made death the gate to endless joy, and the 
Bible the murderer of men. Is it true that the Bible origi- 
nates any miseries that come in consequence of sickness, and 
death, and devastation spread by pestilence in the earth? 
Have there been no tears shed, has there been no blood shed, 
but that the Bible has given authority for it ? Such a charge 
ought to be passed by in silence; yet it has as good a founda- 
tion in truth as nine tenths of the charges brought against the 
Bible on this floor, and yet we know this has not the least 
foundation to rest upon. Instead of drawing the t€ar from the 
mother's eye, while weeping over the infants dear to the moth- 
er's heart, it is the only consolation she can know this side of 
the resurrection. Does the Bible draw the tear from the eye 
of the child weeping over the death of a father or a mother, or 
both 1 " Tell it not in Gath, nor in the streets of Askalon," 
that such a charge in the nineteenth century should be made 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 311 

against the Bible. Why, sir, it has not the slightest founda- 
tion to save it from infinite and unbounded perdition. It must 
go to nothing^ from whence it originated. 

Another charge was brought last evening. Martin Luther, 
it is said, spoke of the Bible as a horlot — called it a harlot. 
Well, now, this must have been some new communication 
from the spheres ; I wonder what source it came from. Did it 
come from any of Martin Luther's WTitings ? I should like to 
see that book. Is it any where to be found 1 No, sir ; Martin 
Luther raised his war against the Papal Church on the founda- 
tion of the Bible, and he carried the war to the very knife. I 
do not mean a literal knife, but to the very death again-st that 
Church, all the while standing upon the foundation of the 
Bible, publishing to the world the very faith that has been 
proclaimed upon this stand, and emancipated the worM by in- 
troducing that faith among the common people. 

And it was said, as another charge against the Bible, that 
we have to interpret the Bible according to our ideas of truth. 
I say that we must admit that here lies the great difficulty 
with us, and here, sir, I am willing to admit, lies the diffi- 
culty between me and my brothers. If we disagree, it is be- 
cause we judge differently, and our disagreement is according 
to our various ideas of truth. 

We will try this principle. The joiner is doing a piece of 
work, and makes up his mind that a certain piece of lumber 
will fill up a certain unfinished place. He must do his work 
according to his own ideas of truth (right), must he? He has 
a standard by which to determine right, and must draw it 
from his pocket, and then his work will come right. It will 
be according to the law of his business. If we interpret the 
Scriptures according to our own ideas of truth, without some 
standard, we may be off the track as often as on it. The 
differences in the human judgment shows this in all matters, 
the world all over — this God of Nature is a fallible God. 

I pass to make a few remarks in regard to the speech of 



812 PROCEEDIN(}S OF THE 

my friend Mr. Davis this morning. Mr. Davis, as remarked 
before, has repeated (I do not mean to say quoted from others, 
understand me, but he has repeated) the same charges that 
have been made from this stand before against the Bible. It 
is true these charges were most elegantly dressed. They were 
a dish served up in the best style ; and really, if we could sit 
down and eat safely, we would like to sit at such a dish ; but 
then we see near its bottom a fatal sediment, which we would 
avoid. Mr. Davis asked, " Can religion be destroyed ?" We 
answer. No. Religion destroyed? No, never^ without you 
can destroy its Author. The question is, What is religion? 
My fi'iend Davis, though he spoke something about it, did not 
define that religion so that I could understand it. I, however, 
understand that he spoke of the religion of Nature. This was 
nearly Mr. Davis' remark, but I am not positive. 

Mr. Davis — I spoke of the religion of science. 

Mr. Turner — It is the religion of science and the enlight- 
ened intellect. That can certainly be destroyed. If that is 
the religion that ray friend thinks can not be destroyed, then 
we are at issue ; for if it is the intellect, however refined 
and instructed, we know it can be destroyed. If we are 
told it survives the grave, I know better. Do you know that 
in this organism there is any such thing as can survive death ? 
We search all over this system, and dissect its every part and 
portion, and where is the man that dare claim that he can find 
any thing that will survive the outside of death ? Is it in the 
head 1 In what part of the brain is that peculiar immortal 
principle that will survive the ruin of this body ? There is 
no such principle there. " Oh, it has escaped." Where did 
it lodge in the system while here? When the butterfly goes, 
you can find the place it went out of its former house, but can 
you find the place where such an immortal spirit ever went 
out of a human body ? We say that this doctrine is not de- 
rived from the Bible. Yon have no right to charge the Bible 
with it. " Oh, we learn this doctrine from natural religion." 



HAKTFOKD BIBLE OONVENTION. 313 

Where, where, where did the heathen philosopher originate the 
idea ? Did he find it in the laws of nature ? What are the 
laws of natural religion in regard to man's immortality % This 
law is in his construction. Here are the laws that govern the 
man, so far as his physical and mortal construction and being 
are concerned ; and what are they 1 We dissect the man in all 
his parts as before stated, and we find no such principle as 
can exist beyond the dissolution of the body. This undying 
principle is very much like the " heau-ideal God" of which the 
lady spoke last evening — it exists only in the imagination, a 
mere chimera. And did the imagination ever overleap the 
tomb, and hold converse with spirits there ? " Oh, no, they 
come back here." They come not back here, and they never 
will come here until the resurrection; they know not any 
thing ; their soul perished. 

But my friend Davis asked another question : *' What is 
the rock on which religion rests 1 Is it the Bible ?" He then 
said. It is founded on the rock of natural science. 

Mr. A. J. Davis — I said it had its firm foundation in the 
rock of the human soul, and in its unfolding faculties. The 
true and correct manifestation of practical religion will be 
when the man by external or internal influences has arrived at 
the fullness of the stature of a perfect man. 

Rev. Mr. Turner — ^The rock, then, is the constitution, prop- 
erly, of the human soul ; in the human mind we are to find 
the rock of religion. Oh, how changing ! oh, how wasting is 
the rock on which religion rests! The human mind will 
change to-day, aye, and to-morrow ; for my friend said, " I 
will not bind myself to believe to-morrow what I believe to- 
day. I hope to learn more." And is that the rock on which 
religion rests'? We could show a law of nature that may 
decree that he may know much less to-morix>w than he knows 
to-day ; the senses may be impaired to-morrow, the balance 
of mind destroyed. Poor rock, then ! I was glad to hear the 
remarks of my friend Davis in regard to the poverty of the 

14 



314 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Bible. I was glad to hear him quote the text, " The kingdom 
of Heaven is within you," and said, " if it is not here, where is 
it ?" He quoted the text as it is. He does not quote the mar- 
ginal reading. Does it mean the kingdom is within the human 
heart? The farthest from it possible. The kingdom was 
among that people. 

He says that " the scientific discoveries of this century are 
in open and startling opposition to the claims of the Bible 
to infallibility." He instances geology, astronomy, physi- 
ology. " The results of these sciences — the discoveries these 
sciences have made," he says, " stand out in open and startling 
opposition to the claims of the Bible to infallibility." I will 
not argue here. It is not proper ; he did not argue, he only 
asserted. I will not attempt to argue upon the general sciences 
of geology, astronomy, nor physiology; but in a proper 
time, I here say that I am ready to meet with the Bible either 
or all these sciences, and defend the Bible. 

In my remarks on Friday afternoon I challenged them for 
the first well and thoroughly-defined and well-established law 
of geology that conflicted with the record. I know what I 
said, though my friend the Chairman thought I did not know. 
I know that all beyond a given point backward in geology is 
mere conjecture and assumption ; and I know that geology is 
but in its infancy, and that one half of its head is paralyzed, 
one half of its assumptions never can be proved. In regard 
to astronomy, we do not speak of the conjectures of the multi- 
tude, which are as various as the number of astronomers ; but, 
sir, we speak of laws well defined — laws in astronomy that 
can not be disputed ; no such law is in opposition to the 
Bible. When -vve come to that law which contradicts the 
Bible, then we are ready to join issue against that point; but 
this is not the place to discuss that question, and if it is not 
to be discussed, why throw out the claims of science as 
against the Bible, with an assurance that many of the audience 
can not master, and therefore will be a thunderbolt against it ? 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 315 

I say that I am ready to meet any of these questions in a 
proper place. The Bible is the only book that can be found 
that gives you the true physiology of a man. It is the only 
book that reads you God's creation right. We will consider 
on man while he is alive ; we will watch him until life's taper 
goes out ; and we will see if in the outside of death any thing 
escapes from him that looks like a spirit- vapor. Follow him 
to the tomb, and put him into his long resting-place, and both 
the Bible and physiology leave him there till made anew. 
The Bible, we repeat, is the only book that speaks of man 
according to true physiology — that physiology which is never 
thoroughly established. The Bible, as it regards physiology 
and phrenology, has been one of my best text-books ; it speaks 
of man as both these sciences demonstrate him to be. 

My friend Davis says, " there has been an age of force and 
an age of love, and may there not be an age of wisdom." 
He speaks of force in one sense, and I would look upon it in 
another. " There is an age of love, and may there not be an 
age of wisdom*?" Is this all the perfection that man can 
come to 1 Is the highest point to which he can arrive the age 
of wisdom 1 Is there not something more than that 1 If not, 
well may we say with Paul, "If in this life only we have hope 
in Christ, truly we are of all men most miserable." Has this 
thought of those ages originated in the book of nature 1 It 
may have been original with friend Davis, but whether it ori- 
ginated with the book of nature or not, I am certain that it 
originated with my Bible. 

Says the Apostle Peter, referring to olden time, the ante- 
diluvian world and flood, " Whereby the world that then was, 
being overflowed with water, perished ; but the heavens and 
the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, 
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition 
of ungodly men ; nevertheless we, according to his promise, 
look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth right- 
eousness." Here are three ages (worlds), the world which 



316 ^ PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

then was. that which is now, and that which is to come. Then 
take the book and read these portions which apply to this 
state, and it will tell you that there is to be an age of wisdom ; 
but it utters you another fact : immediately after the resur- 
rection there will be an age of wisdom, an eternal age. 

A. J. Davis — My book of nature makes me think very 
strongly that there will be an age of wisdom in this world that 
will succeed the age of love, as a natural development, very 
much as nature tells me that after she has produced thorn and 
all the interior developments, she produces fruit. 

Rev. Mr. Turner — The Bible does not tell you of a heaven 
beyond the bounds of time and space ; but it tells you of a 
redeemed earth as well as a redeemed man, so the place of 
the wisdom of man is to be on this earth, the fruit and per- 
fection of the two previous ages, but in immortality. Mr. 
Davis says, " He who would not be wise above what is writ- 
ten in any book is a miserable pagan." If this is true, then 
I must fall under the oliarge of paganism ; for though I would 
be wise above all the books of mere men, and of natural re- 
ligion, I dare not be wise above the books that were written 
for men by the agency of the Holy Ghost, that portion of the 
books we call the Bible. That is the record, the faithful record 
of divine inspiration. Now we will travel into some of those 
lands where they have claimed to be wise above what is writ- 
ten in any book. Will you take a look at France 1 Did they 
not, in France, try to be wise above what is written ? Did 
they not bring together the Bibles, and cause them to be 
burned 1 What is the picture of France in a short time after 
this is done "? Let ladies who look upon the picture of France 
after the Bible has been burned in the public square, see the 
condition of woman where the Bible is condemned, where 
reason, wise above what is written in the Bible, is deified and 
enthroned. 

What was France when she had no Bible ? She was full of 
blood, of murder, of rapme, of incest, of every kind of crime, 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 317 

and the government of France was obliged to bring back the 
Bible to settle the difficulty, and to control the " God of Na- 
ture," who had become unreasonable. 

What is the character of any people who claim to be wise 
above what is written in any book 1 I will not say to any 
man who comes forward to argue that the Bible is not a book 
of divine origin, that he is going to be guilty of any of these 
various crimes, but I speak of these effects as a warning. All 
those who have obeyed the Bible will say, that instead of its 
influence being bad, it has charmed the serpent spirit of man 
to become docile, and to lie at the foot of the cross perfectly 
submissive. 

Mr. Joseph Barker — Mr. Turner states that the husband 
whom the woman was to obey was the Bible husband. The 
second statement is that Sarah was never commanded to do 
by Abraham any thing which she might not do without reluc- 
tance. These are two very plain points that have to be de- 
cided by reference to two very plain passages of Scripture, 
and the error into which our friend has fallen in those very 
two points may show you how strange it is that preachers 
should blunder so much respecting their statements. 

Now, with respect to the first, that the husband whom the 
wife is called upon to obey is the Bible husband, I read the 
passage yesterday, so it seems strange how he should forget 
it. " Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own hus- 
bands, that if any obey not the word they may be, without the 
word, won by the conversation of the wives." The Christian 
wives are to obey their own Christian husbands, in order that 
they may win over their unchristian husbands. Mr. Turner 
made use of his remarks in order to make answer to what I 
said, that the wife was to obey her husband, although he was 
a drunkard. The commands which Abraham gave to Sarah 
were reasonable commands, and she might obey them without 
any reluctance. What are the two commands of which the 



818 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Scriptures speak of Abraham's giving to Sarah ? There are two 
c^ses in which Abraham gives command to Sarah, and do you 
know that in both these cases the command is to tell a lie ? 
And this is the good wife whom Christian women are to imi- 
tate. Slie called her husband lord, and lied whenever he told 
her to lie. (Applause.) 

Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose — It seems to me to be a pitiable 
condition in the way of argument, when, instead of testing a 
subject on its own intrinsic value, by its own worth and its 
own truth, we have to resort to a comparison of it with some- 
thing else that may be quite as bad. Now to this process our 
friends, the supporters of the Bible, have to resort. The first 
speaker, Mr. Storrs, this afternoon, instead of trying to defend 
the origin, authority, and influence of the Bible by its own 
intrinsic value and merits, went to comparing it, or the God 
of the Bible, with what he imagines to be the God of Nature ; 
and therefore, thus comparing the two, they exclaim, "You 
will say that the God of the Bible is cruel and inhuman — the 
God of Nature is as cruel ; you will say the God of the Bible 
allowed many evils to exist — we retaliate, and say the God of 
Nature did the same." But what does all that amount to ? 
To any defense of the God of the Bible? Not in the least. 
It simply amounts to this, that if there is any such thing as a 
God behind nature who sends earthquakes, whirlwinds, tem- 
pests, and destruction for the purpose of destroying men, he 
is quite as inconsistent as the God of the Bible. It means no 
more. But it did not prove it right, nor disprove any of the 
charges I made against the Bible or the Bible God. (Cries of 
hear, hear, and applause.) Mr. Turner, after he had thus 
compared the charges laid to the God of the Bible with the 
charges he laid against the God of Nature, went to some of 
my remarks of last evening. He thought it was a most out- 
rageous thing to lay the evils that woman sufl;ers to the Bible. 
It may appear outrageous to him, I do not doubt ; it appears 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 319 

far more outrageous to me to find that such is the case ; and 
as owing to the confusion last evening he may not have been 
able to hear what I said on the subject, I will repeat some 
of it. 

I mentioned last evening the passage of Scripture, that after 
God had created man, and pronounced all to be very good, 
he found out his mistake, namely, " It was not good for man 
to be alone," and therefore he created woman. I said, and do 
say, that it is a libel alike to the power they call God, or 
Creator, as well as to the nature of woman, to say that he 
created one half of his children — one half of the whole human 
race — not for the same great aim and end in life as man, but 
because it was not well for man to be alone ; so he was under 
the painful necessity to create her as a pastime, a plaything, 
or a drudge, as the circumstances and the position may re- 
quire. Upon this irrational foundation has the subjugation of 
woman in Christendom been based. (Applause.) But Mr. 
Turner asked, is it such a hardship to obey a husband 1 and 
brought Sarah as an example, that she, too, obeyed her husband. 
I asked him whether, if there was no hardshijD in obeying, he 
would like to have been in the position of Sarah, and obey his 
wife as she had to obey her husband ? His answer was, that he 
was not a woman, and therefore could not say how he would 
have felt in her position. Yes, so say I, that as he is not a 
woman, he is utterly incapable of judging for her. How in- 
consistent then — what an assumption and a flirce — for him to 
stand here and talk about woman's position and woman's 
sphere, when he is incapable of placing himself for one mo- 
ment in her position, to judge how she would feel under cer- 
tain circumstances. The Bible writers were not women, hence 
they so cruelly libeled her nature ; and as they were men as 
utterly ignorant of her nature and feelings as he is, how could 
they know what was her proper sphere ? and how does Mr. 
Turner know that the sphere the Bible prescribes to woman 
is the right and proper sphere for her, when he can not give 



820 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

the simplest answer to the simplest question, how he would 
feel were he a Avoman ? (Applause.) Consistency is a jewel 
which I fear can not be found in his possession. (Applause.) 
How can she ever be in her proper position and her proper 
sphere when man prescribes both for her ? How can she ever 
be understood when man defines and interprets for herl How 
can she ever be rightly governed when man enacts the laws 
to govern the being whose nature he can not understand, 
whose feelings he can not realize, whose motives he can not 
appreciate 1 How can justice be done to her when he most 
ignorantly judges and condemns her 1 Never ! No ! woman 
must speak for herself, she must help to enact the laws by 
which she shall be governed, she must plead her cause, she 
must judge for woman. (Pointing to Mr. T., Mrs. Rose 
said, with much feeling and vehemence :) Yonder sits a man 
who bears testimony that man is incapable of judging for 
woman. (Great applause.) But we are told Christianity 
has done a great deal for woman, for " the Bible commands 
the husband to love his wife." Indeed/ Husbands before 
me, can you love your wives by an arbitrary command 1 
[A Voice — Yes, in some cases.] Wives, can you love your 
husbands because somebody, somewhere, commanded you to 
do if? No. [A Voice — As true as eternity.] (Laughter.) 
If we are not able to love by an arbitrary command, how ir- 
rational then — what a wonderful ignorance in the writers of 
that command — I care not whether they were from above or 
below, that gave it. Husbands, love your wives from a pain- 
ful sense of duty, because the Bible commands you to do so. 
(Laughter.) Painful, indeed, must such a duty be, both to the 
giver and receiver. (Applause.) What a prostitution of the 
very term, love, by affixing a command to it. But suppose 
it could be done, but some husbands will not do it — at any 
rate we find not all husbands do it — then would the com- 
mander force him to love his wife? For if it is true that hus- 
bands can love their wives by an arbitrary command, tHen 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 321 

they ought to be made to obey. When any of our laws are 
violated, the person is held to account for it, unless a law is 
so bad and inconsistent that no one can or ought to obey it ; 
then we call that law or lawgiver to account to abolish it. 
Let the supporters of that Bible command force-husbands to 
do their duty, or abolish all such irrational laws, or at any 
rate, whatever the laws are — good, bad, or indifferent — let them 
be alike for both, or not at all. I wish we had fair laws, and 
we would be much better, wiser, and happier. We have far 
too much legislation here, and I am sure we require no Bible 
legislation in addition. (Applause.) Mr. Turner spoke about 
the happy condition woman was in. Yes, we have a very 
gratifying picture before us — to my mind more gratifying than 
any other in nature — to see an assembly of human beings met 
with a desire to inquire into the nature of a book forced upon 
mankind as truth ; and the condition of my sisters before me, 
if compared, as Mr. Turner compares the God of the Bible, 
with something worse, I doubt not is very flattering and hap- 
py ; but if we compare her present position with what she 
ought, what she might, and would be, had she her full rights, 
as a human being, to education and position, then we find a 
difference almost too great to realize it, but of which Mr. 
Turner, not being a woman, can know nothing whatever. 
(Laughter.) But it is asked, what does woman want? Our 
friend there (pointing to Mr. Turner) insinuated that we de- 
sire to become men. Do you, my sisters, wish to become 
men ^ [A Voice — ■" No."] (Laughter.) In the general sense 
of the term, as applying to human beings, loe are men. 
(Hear, hear.) As applying to sex, it requires no answer, and 
I will give it none. (Applause.) But whether man or woman, 
are we not entitled to the rights of humanity because we are 
your mothers instead of your fathers ? We claim our rights 
irrespective of sex. We claim them, not only in accordance 
with the laws of humanity, but also in accordance with the 
Declaration of Independence. Are we not entitled to life, 

14* 



322 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

liberty, and the pursuits of happiness 1 (Hear, hear.) And 
what is life without liberty? (Applause.) Who of you 
would desire to preserve it an hour without it 1 and what is 
liberty without equality of rights 1 A mockery. And what 
can be our pursuits of happiness when man has prescribed 
our sphere of thought and action within the narrowest possible 
limits — when the needle and the wash-tub are nearly the only 
avocations he has assigned her for her independence, except 
getting married. (Hear, hear, and applause.) Tell me we 
complain, and that we ought to be thankful to Christianity for 
our condition ! Yes, we owe to Christianity our degraded, en- 
slaved position, and let all be thankful for it who can. I ask 
for woman what you ask for man — the same rights, privileges, 
and opportunities to educate and develop our beings physic- 
ally, mentally, and m-orally, to the fullest extent of her being ; 
throw open to her all the avenues of emolument of honor, 
and greatness, and she will find he-r true sphere, for who can 
find it for her "? " Why do I ask for it f Because it is our 
right, and because the withholding of our rights has produced 
incalculable evil and suffering. I suffer, not only individually 
but as belonging to my sex — as belonging to the race — for 
man suffers as grievously by it as woman does. We ask to 
give woman her inalienable rights, and to enable her to become 
a real and true woman, and not a man ; but if by the term, 
man is meant the capacity to think and reason more, reflect 
deeper, judge wiser, and act better, then the sooner all of us 
are men, Mr. Turner included, the better. (Applause.) We 
ask for knowledge, for knowledge is power. After mother 
Eve partook of and gave her husband of the tree of knowledge, 
the gods even became afraid of them, so it must be worth 
something, and it is worth to woman just as much as to man. 
The great misfortune was, that poor mother Eve did not eat 
enough of the tree of knowledge, for we have been hungry 
after it ever since. She did not know that 



HAETFOBD BIBLE CONVENTION. 323 

** A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ; 

Drink deep, or touch not the halcyon spring." 

(Applause,) The slave ought to be in utter ignorance ; the 
moment you give him any knowledge he will cast off his 
slavery. We know now too much to be satisfied with our 
condition ; we want more, we want all that can be given; for 
as knowledge is power, it promotes independence, and we 
want to be independent, for dependence is degrading, for wo- 
man ought to be as independent of man as he is of her. The 
dependence ought to be mutual and reciprocal — not as master 
and slave — joined by unjust and mercenary ties, but the de- 
pendence on each other's kindness and services ; affection ought 
to be the only bond between man and woman. (Applause.) 
And would she be any less woman if capable of insuring, if 
necessary, her own independence 1 Some wiseacres may tell 
you so. They will tell you that if she has her rights she will 
cease to be a woman, forsake her children, and turn recreant 
to her n-ature. Common sense will tell you that only then 
will she be a w^oman, capable, if needs be, to take care of her- 
self, her children, aye, and her husband too. And why should 
she not. If it gives you pleasure, and, I doubt not, elevates 
you and fills your minds with unspeakable gratification when 
you strive for and succeed in promoting the happiness of those 
you love, it would be as gratifying to her ; the same generous 
emotions would fill the mind of woman, were she able, if ne- 
cessity called for it, to show her affection to her husband, not 
only in letting him maintain her, but when she had to main- 
tain him, by her knowledge and well-directed industry; and 
there would be just as little degradation in the one case as in 
the other. (Applause.) Mr. Turner proclaims himself a 
friend to woman's rights. I don't doubt, according to his 
understanding of human rights, and according to his knowledge 
of the nature of woman, he goes for her rights ; but as he 
derives his knowledge from the Bible, ought we to wonder 



324 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

that it falls so deplorably short ? Not in the least. I should 
wonder if, with his belief in the Bible, he went for woman's 
perfect equality with man, or for human rights, without dis- 
tinction of sex, country, or color. Oh, but he told us that in 
comparison to other countries and ages, woman is treated very 
kindly. The Mohammedan has been instanced ; and we were 
told that woman was found there holding the plow. Dread- 
ful ! I can point you to Christian countries where the husband 
smokes his pipe while the wife plows the land. 

[Mr. Turner said, in Mohammedan countries the woman 
has to draw the plow, not hold it.] 

Well, I can point you to Christian countries for the same. 
Go to Christian Germany, and you will find many a wife 
plow the ground ; and where they have no horses she has to 
do it without, and reap the harvest, and carry it home on her 
broken back, while her husband sits and smokes his pipe. 
But where he is not too lazy to work, I don't see any great 
hardship that the wife should help him, even at the plow, if 
she can do it, only he ought to be with her if he can. I should 
prefer to have my husband with me. (Laughter.) But if a hus- 
band is not able to do his work, or attend to his business, oh, 
what delight it would give a true woman, how it would rouse 
her generous feelings, and fill her with tender emotions, were 
she able to do the work for him, or to attend to their business, 
and take the corroding care and anxiety about the business 
going to wreck and ruin off his mind, and by her own exertion 
provide the necessaries and comforts for him she loved ! Yes, 
loved, not by arbitrary command, but by the force of the law 
of attraction and affinity. (Great applause.) Love her hus- 
band ! I don't think that the wife has any right or any busi- 
ness to love her husband. The Bible does not command the 
wife to love her husband at all ; this command was only given 
to the husband to love his wife; the wife has only to obey, 
that is all. Well, though we can not be made to love by 
force, it is quite clear we may be made to obey by force ; any 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 325 

slave can tell you that, and so can a wife, according to the 
Bible — Sarah, for instance. (Laughter.) 

The Bible husbands Mr. Turner spoke of framed the laws 
for woman ; hence she is so well protected. Blackstone tells 
us — and he must have taken his ideas of right from the Bible — 
that the husband and the wife are one, and that one is the 
husband. (Laughter.) That is according to the common law 
of England, and common enough it is, mercy knows ; but from 
these common laws we have our laws regulating marriage ; and 
yet it must be right, for it is according to the Bible ; the hus- 
band and wife become one. and that one is the husband, and, 
therefore, whatever the wife possesses becomes the husband's, 
for they are one, says the Bible and Blackstone, except when 
the wife violates a law of the land, then they become two 
again, for instead of hanging the husband, they hang the wife. 
(Laughter.) But Mr. Turner will tell us that even that is 
better than something worse, (Laughter.) Is it not so? 
(Laughter.) Well, I suppose it is. (Applause.) That in 
more barbarous ages and countries woman was treated more 
barbarously; and who has a desire to deny iti Not L But 
what does that prove 1 Any thing 1 Oh, yes, it proves that 
man is always a child before he is grown to be a man ; not 
only is that true with the individual man, but with the race ; 
that the race was not born civilized any more than individual 
man is ever born in the full maturity of strength and mind, 
and that in more barbarous ages we acted more barbarously 
than in more civilized ages (applause), which proves the truth 
of my position, that man always acts according to the knowl- 
edge and civilization he possesses. Last evening we had a 
full illustration of it (laughter and applause) ; for it is an 
unmistakable fact, that just according as man is civilized 
does he treat woman. (Applause.) And would you know 
the amount of civilization in a country, look at the position 
woman occupies, and you will find that in proportion as she 
has her rights equal with man, so is the nation civilized, and 



S^6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

in proportion as they are denied her, so are they yet in a state 
of barbarity, no matter by what name they may exist. The 
position of woman is a living index of the state of civilization ; 
they go hand in hand. And as man becomes more civilized, 
through the cultivation of the arts and sciences, and has his 
taste more refined, his sentiments more elevated, is more ca- 
pable to appreciate the beautiful, better to understand the 
nature and laws that govern man, the relation he sustains to 
his fellow-man, human rights and happiness, the aim and end 
of human existence, so does he act more rational and more 
consistent, and woman, of course, occupies a more rational and 
consistent position in the scale of society. But what have we 
to thank for it 1 Christianity or the Bible ? Then let us see 
how much Christianity has done to promote civilization, how 
much it has done for the arts and sciences. Go to the Bible, 
and you will find it opposed to all the arts, sciences, happi- 
ness, and life itself. Worldly wisdom, knowledge, and hap- 
piness are called, in Bible language, " the enemies of man." 
" Life is only a vale of tears," only a gloomy passage to 
stumble through, fight with the devil, die, and go up to sing 
hallelujah, or down to roast, for the gratification of those in 
heaven. What need, then, for arts and sciences 1 They would 
not be required there. (Cries of hear, hear.) That is the 
whole Bible estimate of human life, and hence Christianity 
has ever opposed every art and science, as the light of knowl- 
edge and progress force it upon society. (Cries of hear, hear.) 
These facts are too well known to require any illustration to 
confirm the truth of the statement. Astronomy, geology, 
physiology, chemistry, the art of printing, education, even all 
has been opposed by the priests, and they found their author- 
ity in the Bible to warn the people against innovations, against 
worldly wisdom, to attach them to this life, and lead them 
away from heaven, as emanations from the devil. (Cries of 
hear, hear, and applause.) Reason is held up by the Bible 
as an enemy to man, a false guide, that will lead him to per- 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 327 

dition; human virtues are called "filthy rags;" faith, only 
faith in things unseen and unknown will save him. Yet we 
have to thank the Bible and Christianity for the little civili- 
zation, rights, and happiness we enjoy, when every step we 
have taken, every inch of ground we have gained, was in direct 
opposition to it. My very standing here is in opposition to it. 
(Applause.) But I will leave this subject, though my heart 
and head are full with it, and go to some other evidence that 
the Bible must be by divine inspiration ; and, as a proof, we 
are told in the Bible that after God created the world and 
had pronounced it to be good, he found out he had made 
a mistake, for not only was it not good, but he found it so bad 
that it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earthy 
and it grieved him at his heart, and he swore he would destroy 
it again. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was 
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts 
of his heart was only evil continually," and, consequently, he 
brought the flood to destroy all flesh ; but as if afraid lest he 
might not succeed in making the animal portion over again, he 
adopted the very prudent plan of preserving a pair of each 
kind as stock in hand to commence the world anew with. I 
think the construction of the ark, with its numberless com- 
partments to accommodate the vast number and variety of ani- 
mals that have existed, from the polar bear, the girafle, the ele- 
phant, through all gradations, down to the musquito, the flea, 
and the fly, must be a proof of divine inspiration ! As for 
how they were all brought together, I can see no other way 
than the angel Gabriel must have called them together with 
his trumpet. (Laughter.) However, after the flood was all 
over, and Father Noah built an altar, and brought a nice fat 
little lamb as a sacrifice, then the Lord smelled the sweet 
savor, and it repented him that he destroyed the world, and 
he said in his heart that he would not curse the ground any 
more for man's sake, " for the imagination of his heart is evil 
from his youth." Thus the same reason that made him 



328 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

repent that he had made man, and induced him to destroy the 
world, namely, that the " imagination of the thoughts of the 
heart of man being evil continually," induced him, after the 
flood, to promise Noah that he would never destroy it again, 
namely, "for the imagination of his heart is evil from his 
youth." But we must remember that the sweet savor of the 
freshly-burned offerings of the fowls, and the beasts, and the 
creeping things was so irresistible to God's nostrils, that it put 
him in such a good humor, that in spite of the wickedness of 
man's heart, he resolved not to destroy him again. (Laughter 
and applause.) 

Let no one say that we ridicule the Bible, for it is utterly 
impossible to ridicule a thing so sublimely ridiculous as the 
whole account of the flood in the Bible. Just see the position 
the Bible places its God in. He created man, pronounced him 
good, found him bad, repented for having created him, resolved 
to destroy, not only him, but the whole animal and vegetable 
creation, then repented again of having done it, and resolved 
never to do it again. Would any of you like to be placed 
in so ridiculous a position ? (Cries of no, and laughter.) Yet 
this God, the same book tells us, possesses all wisdom, all 
knowledge, and all goodness. It is almost an insult to com- 
mon sense to talk about believing in such stuff* and nonsense, 
(Applause.) The head and the heart, or reason and affection, 
have always been libeled by the Bible ; for the writers and 
priestly interpreters knew but too well if reason and affection 
were consulted, the Bible would be left alone, for in it there is 
food neither for head nor heart ; it has nearly famished and de- 
stroyed both. The wars, the slavery, the intolerance, the 
vices and crimes it inculcated, are so many plague-spots on 
human society, and will never be entirely effaced as long as 
that book is consulted as authority and guide for man. But 
Mr. Turner said. It was not at all inconsistent that the Lord 
commanded war, for have not we, as a nation, had war ? Yes^ 
we had war, and all the more shame for it ; but does our hav- 



HAKTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 329 

ing war make it right? But suppose it were right for one 
nation to make war upon another nation, can that be an ex- 
cuse for God to make war upon his children 1 For are not all 
men his children 1 We are told he created all men, if so, all 
must be his children. Oh, yes ; but then the impartial Father 
had chosen a few as his favorites, and commanded them to 
extirpate all other nations — the Midianites, Canaanites, and all 
the other ites that existed around them, and take their lands 
as their possessions. Were these ites, then, not his children ? 
Had not the Lord created the Midianites, Canaanites, and all 
the rest of the ites the Bible tells us ofl And yet thfe Bible 
says, " Thus saith the Lord ; go and slay and extirpate, and 
spare not man or woman, old or young," except such as they 
could make useful to gratify their brutal passions and appetites. 
This is said to be the word of God. Well, I care not whose 
word it is ; most emphatically do I protest against it as an out- 
rage on humanity, for my whole heart, mind, and soul revolts 
against such barbarity. (Applause.) [A Voice — Amen.] 
[Another Voice — When the Egyptian power became corrupt, 
and oppressed the Israelites, did not God command them to 
refuse obedience 1] Oh, yes ; he told his chosen children to 
refuse obedience to Pharaoh, another child of his. And what 
did this kind and impartial Father (for God, we are told, is 
impartial) do to induce his disobedient child Pharaoh to set 
his favorites free 1 Why, he sent Moses to tell him to let 
them go, and at the same time he hardened Pharaoh's heart, 
so that he might not send them out, so that he might have the 
pleasure to punish him, and send him the plagues for not doing 
what he would not allow him to do. And yet Pharaoh, I be 
lieve, was made of flesh, bone, and muscles, the same as all 
other men, and therefore the Lord must have made him, for 
we are told that he created all flesh. Yes, the Father hardened 
the heart of one child to enslave some of his other children, 
and they again in turn, to massacre and extirpate some others 
again. (Laughter.) Is this not a beautiful characteristic of 



330 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

the God of the Bible 1 He created all men as his children, 
but could not manage them, so he chose a few as his favorites — 
1 am sure no one can tell for what particular merits — and set 
them at loggerheads, to fight and destroy each other. I should 
be sorry if an earthly parent could not manage his children 
better than that. Again, the Bible says God created man and 
woman, and placed them in the garden of Eden, in the midst 
of which he placed a tree with tempting fruit on it, of which 
he forbade the man to eat ; and he also created a serpent, which 
he permitted to go and tempt the woman to partake of this 
very forbidden fruit. Well, did he not know when he placed 
them there, and placed the tree there, and sent the serpent to 
tempt them — for the Bible tells us that nothing is done with- • 
out his permission — that poor mother Eve would partake of 
it, and as a faithful wife, finding the fruit was so good, that she 
would induce her husband to partake of it too 1 If he knew 
all this — and he must have known, for the Bible tells us that 
God is omniscient — and he did not wish them to eat of the tree 
of knowledge, then why did he place it there 1 or, placing it 
there, why did he allow the serpent to tempt them 1 Or why 
create them so weak, and with such a taste for fruit, or rather 
for knowledge, so as to be unable to withstand the temptation? 
If the Bible could only speak, it might give some satisfactory 
answers to all these important questions, for I am su4*e no one 
else can. (Applause.) [A Voice — Woman is so weak jiow 
as to be tempted.] 

Mrs. Rose — Very likely ; I am sorry he made her so weak, 
and created a tempter to tempt her. (Laughter.) Yes, she 
is weak enough, or she would not be so deluded by the Bible 
and its interpreters the priests. (Applause.) Well, then, poor 
Adam and Eve did eat the forbidden fruit, as they could do 
no otherwise under the circumstances. What then? Did 
their heavenly Father correct them for their first disobedience, 
the same as any earthly parent would, and induce them to do 
better after that ? Oh no ! curses and heavy penalties were 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 331 

pronounced against them, and not only against them for life, 
but on the whole unborn race to come after them. (Cries of 
hear, hear.) This is Bible justice and Bible mercy. [A Voice 
from the gallery — Hear, blasphemy.] Blasphemy ! oh, yes, 
blasphemy has ever been the cry against progress, and oppo- 
sition to superstition. This was the cry of the old Pope 
against the ancient Luther, and this is the cry of the modern 
Popes against the modern Luthers. (Applause.) But it has 
lost its power now, and has become harmless. (Applause.) 
Yes, only the God of the Bible, mercy and justice, could have 
pronounced an eternal curse on an unborn race for the first 
fault committed by the first two children. Is there an imagi- 
nation black enough to conceive of a more inhuman and atro- 
cious spirit than that? If there v/ere any meaning in the 
term blasphemy, then it would be the greatest blasphemy to 
ascribe such revolting deeds to any power or being deserving 
the name of the most ordinary goodness. (Applause.) But 
what was the nature of the curse ? Why, Adam should have 
to plow the ground and cultivate the earth. Well, I don't 
know how it might have been had they remained in their bliss- 
ful paradistic ignorance, but I doubt very much if corn, pota- 
toes, and all the other good things, would have grown without 
cultivation. (Laughter.) But perhaps the two inhabitants of 
Eden might not have required such gross, material food. But 
it always puzzled me to know, that if Adam and Eve had not 
sinned by tasting of that unfortunate apple, what would have'be- 
come of the rest of creation ] We are told that every thing 
was created for man ; God gave man dominion over every 
thing ; but if they had not tasted of knowledge they could not 
have had dominion over any thing, nor made use of any thing ; 
they were too ignorant even to use a fig-leaf (laughter), so 
that the whole object of creation would have been lost, were 
it not for mother Eve's desire for knowledge. (Applause.) 
Eor knowledge is power, of which even God seemed to be 
afraid ; for as soon as he found that they had tasted of the tree 



832 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

of knowledge, he drove them out of the garden, lest they 
should partake of the tree of life, too, " and become like one 
of us" — us, who 1 Why, Gods ! So there must have been 
more than one of them. And so jealous was he even of the 
little knowledge they possessed — knowing that after man once 
tastes of knowledge, he will not be satisfied till he has more — 
so he placed angels with fiery swords at all the gates to fight 
poor man off from the tree of knowledge and of life. Thus 
poor man has ever since had to fight, step by step, and inch by 
inch, for the little knowledge, happiness, and life he enjoyed ; 
for everywhere he encountered the sworn enemy of knowl- 
edge and of life — the God of the Bible — with his fiery swords. 
(Applause.) Some of those heavenly guardians must have 
been here last evening, hence I had to fight pretty hard for my 
right to utter my convictions ; for by freedom of speech only 
do we arrive at knowledge and truth. (Applause.) Yet Mr. 
Turner told us that we have to thank the Bible for the rights 
and privileges we enjoy. Indeed/ Had your forefathers, be- 
fore they cast off the British yoke, consulted the Bible on the 
subject, they would never have revolted at all. The Bible 
does not allow revolt. Revolutionists have always been con- 
sidered as unbelievers and infidels by Bible interpreters, 
w^hose interest it is to keep man in subjection and ignorance ; 
for the Bible injunction is, " Oppose not those in authority," 
" Submit to the powers that be, for they are of God." Had 
the "people of Boston, when they converted their harbor into 
a tea-pot, because the taxation imposed on them was too heavy, 
gone to the Bible for advice, they would have paid on and 
groaned on to all eternity, for the Bible would have told them, 
" GJve unto Coesar the things that belong to Cfesar." 

What a fallacy, then, to talk about the freedom that comes 
from the Bible ! The little knowledge and freedom we possess 
we have in opposition to and in spite of the Bible, and par- 
ticularly we, my sisters. The Bible and the priests have done 
enough to keep us down ; it is high time to rise above both of 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 333 

them. My very appearing here to raise my voice in behalf 
of freedom and humanity is contrary to the Bible ; but the 
desire nature has implanted in me for knowledge and freedom 
is more powerful than the injunctions of a superstitious book. 
Humanity is older than the Bible, and human rights are as old 
as humanity. (Applause.) And therefore I claim for woman 
equal rights with man. I claim them, not as a grant, or charity, 
but as our birthright. (Applause.) Humanity has not come 
into existence with chains and shackles, but free as the breath 
of heaven (applause), to develop human nature as it ought to 
be — free to think, feel, and act, always keeping in mind not to 
interfere with the same rights in others. Human rights in- 
clude the rights of all, not only man, but woman, not only 
white, but black ; wherever there is a being called human, his 
rights are as full and expansive as his existence, and ought to 
be without limits or distinction of sex, country, or color. 
(Applause.) And only ignorance, superstition, and tyranny — 
both the basis and influence of the Bible — deprive him of it. 
Mr. Turner, in alluding to my remark of belief, said I found 
fault with the Bible because it said, " He that believeth shall 
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned," and that 
I said the writer of that sentiment was utterly ignorant of the 
nature of man and the formation of belief. Yes, I did ; and 
I illustrated my position by showing how easy it is to make a 
child believe that what we call black is white, or any other 
falsehood as truth, and that he could die in support of it ; and 
black would not be white, nor falsehood truth. " But," said 
Mr. Turner, " you could not make a child believe that black 
was white, if you have told him first that it was black." No, 
certainly not, because you have already made him believe it 
is black, which just proves my position. The child being 
ignorant of it, will believe whatever you call it first, and if 
you teach it a falsehood before it had a chance to know any 
thing about the truth, it will call that falsehood truth. Thus 
Mohammedans do not teach their children Christianity before 



334 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mohammedanism, nor do Christians teach their children Mo- 
hammedanism, or any other ism, before Christianity, so as to 
give them a chance to judge for themselves. Oh no ! each of 
them teaches his children to believe in his ism only, as truth^ 
and in every other ism as false ; and if they never have a 
chance to examine, compare notes, and judge for themselves, 
each may die in support of the truth of his ism. And yet 
one of these isms must be false, or both may be false, and 
both sincerely defended as truth. And therefore there can 
be no merit in a belief, nor demerit in disbelief; and he who 
wrote that irrational sentence, "He that believeth shall be 
saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned," was utterly 
ignorant of the formation of the human mind. Mr. Turner 
agreed with me that in after-life, when we are able to compare 
and judge, belief depends on evidence. " But," said he, " evi- 
dence of Christianity was given to every one, for Christ told 
his disciples to go and preach the gospel to every creature. 
But suppose Moses, Mohammed, Christ, and the nine thousand 
nine hundred and ninety-nine other Christs that have existed, 
each had said the same to his disciples. Go and preach my 
gospel, and he that believeth in it shall be saved, and he that 
believeth not shall be damned, and yet the evidence can at 
best be in favor only of one, and most probably of none. 
What, then, must they deem each other all around ? (Laughter.) 
As rational beings, they ought to say. If the evidence brought 
to bear on any subject is strong enough to convince the mind, 
it elicits an assent or belief; if it is not strong enough to con- 
vince the mind, it elicits no assent, and we can not believe ; 
and the evidence that is strong enough to convince one mind 
may not be strong enough to convince another, and every one 
has a right to judge for himself whether an evidence is strong 
enough or not, and no "one has a right to judge for him. 
(Cries of hear, hear.) How irrational and unjust it is to pun- 
ish for belief at all, and still more so to punish eternally for 
a fault of a moment ! For what is life to eternity '? Who of 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 335 

you, for the disobedience of a child, who would not believe in 
something you told him, even if you thought he could believe, 
but would not, would have the inhumanity to punish it, not 
only for life, but (had you the power) for all eternity 1 No, 
not the lowest and the meanest in the scale of humanity. 
(Applause.) Yet this is the Bible account of the justice and 
mercies of its God. (Cries of hear, hear.) 

In Eevelations we have some glorious accounts of the hap- 
piness the saints will enjoy in singing hymns of praise, while the 
smoke of those in hell will rise up to their nostrils. (A little 
disturbance in the gallery and — A Voice — That is correct.) 
Making some little mistake in pronouncing a word, Mrs. Rose, 
in correcting herself, said — I hope you will have charity for any 
little mistakes I may make in the language, remembering that 
I speak in a foreign language. (Hissing, and a Voice called 
out, " I hope Mrs. Rose will assume the name of Man, for she 
will be an honor to our sex.") 

My friends, no one can fathom the depths of the pernicious 
effect, the incalculable mischief of this false, this horrid doctrine, 
that man can be happy while he sees another man in misery. 
Nature has indelibly written it on the heart of man, in lan- 
guage not to be misunderstood, "that no man can be happy 
while he sees another man in misery." (Applause.) This is 
a truism that changes not with age, climate, or condition ; the 
idea that man could be happy in heaven while he would be 
conscious of the torments and miseries his fellow-man was suf- 
fering, is a libel on human nature, for man can not be happy 
while he sees another in misery. The little comparative hap- 
piness we enjoy is owing to the fact that we can, in a great 
measure, shut out the miseries of others by shutting our doors 
and sitting down by our own comfortable firesides, and for the 
time being forget every thing connected with others. But 
place man in a condition here or hereafter where he shall not 
be able to close his doors and shut misery out — where he shall 
have constant consciousness of every thing that exists, and see 



336 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

his brother man — ah ! "the flesh of his flesh, and the bone of 
his bone" — suffering unspeakable torments, and he, with his 
human feelings and sympathies, unable to help him, and think 
you he could enjoy happiness ? Would he feel like singing 
hymns of praise 1 No ! it is as false as it is obnoxious to 
every better feeling — (applause) — and the writer of this sen- 
tence, I care not who he was, from above or below, was utterly 
ignorant of the nature of man, and the principles of humanity. 
(A Voice—" True.") 

Upon such a principle is based the system of isolation, and 
all the evils that man has inflicted on man, and he will have to 
come back from that false idea — for if happiness is ever to be 
enjoyed by man, he must endeavor to form a state of society 
where misery, sin, and suffering shall be done away, where all 
shall enjoy happiness, or none will ; for it is the nature of man, 
that as long as misery comes within his sight or his hearing 
so long must he feel it. (Applause.) Could you listen to the 
recital of the sufferings in Rome and in Hungary — the injus- 
tice, and cruelties, and tyranny perpetrated on your fellow- 
man, in far distant lands, without feeling every nerve stirred 
within you with indignation against the perpetrators, and a 
strong desire to assist the poor sufferers ] And for the time 
being could you be happy ? No ! for the sympathy that 
unites man to man would not permit it. (Applause.) It did 
not last long, it is true, for in our isolated state we can shut 
all these things out, because they are painful to us, and this 
very fact proves my assertion. But if we had the miseries 
and sufferings of others all the time before our eyes, life would 
become a burden, and we would not wish to live. And 
yet the Bible doctrine is, that the spirit of man — the refined, 
the purified, the divine part of his nature — can enjoy happiness, 
while those nearest and dearest to him in life, perhaps his 
friend, brother, sister, father, mother, husband, wife, or child, 
will suffer endless torments, and he know it and unable 
to help them, and yet enjoy happiness. Every principle of 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 337 

humanity proclaims it a falsehood. In such a position he would 
be a thousand times more miserable than he is here, unless 
his nature should be changed, and then he would no longer be 
man. (Great applause). 

There is that horrible parable of Lazarus and Dives. I don't 
know any particular fault of Dives, for we are told he had 
not committed any great sin ; it is true, he was rich, but all 
riches, we are told, come from God. (Laughter.) Nor are 
we told of any great virtues in Lazarus, except that he was 
pool" and sick, and I am sure he would not have been so, if he 
could have helped it. (Laughter.) Yet Lazarus was in Abra- 
ham's bosom — what a bosom Abraham must have, to accomo- 
date all the poor and sick ! — while poor Dives was in torments 
and agony, and when he asked for one drop of water to cool 
his pai-ched tongue, it was refused him. Nay, he begged to 
send a message to his brother to induce him to be a better man, 
so as to avoid a similar fate ; but this, too, was refused to him. 
Oh ! what glad tidings the Bible doctrine is to man. (Ap- 
plause.) To a sensitive human nature such a heaven would be 
worse than any hell that has ever been described — (applause) 
— and as long as man is deluded into the belief of such a hea- 
ven, will we be prevented from forming a real heaven here, for 
it has all but stifled every kindly feeling and sensation within 
us. It has cramped and crippled us, mentally and morally ; 
it has prevented us from inquiring into the laws best adapted 
for the well-training and well-governing of man. The eternal law 
of kindness should be the only law, sympathy the only bond, the 
great seal of humanity the only compact, between man and man. 
No other gospel is required to bind man to his brother. This 
simple law is deduced directly from the inherent laws of human 
nature, which some call God. The Friends call it the light within ; 
I call it the principle, or law of humanity, which, if man were not 
perverted by false creeds and doctrines, would teach every man 
that natural golden rule, Do unto others as you would they 
should do unto you. (Applause.) This is my faith ! Is that 

15 



338 PROCEEDINGS OP THE 

not broad enough ? Give me a broader, and I will accept it. 
(Applause.) Humanity ! Oh, that I had words to express 
my feelings at the contemplation of it ! I feel a gnshing of love 
within me beyond the power of utterance, not only for mankind, 
but for all that are capable of feeling pleasure and pam. 
Humanity's laws only can ever make man a high and noble 
being — higher, more elevated, and nobler far than we have ever 
yet conceived the gods to be. (Great applause.) 

The Presidenc moved a vote of thanks to Mrs. Rose for her 
address, when she said, 

I thank you for the attention you have paid to my views 
and feelings, and without a vote of thanks I deem myself richly 
paid for my coming here, and my efforts in the cause of 
humanity. Tn the pleasure I received in being able to speak 
the thoughts that have pressed upon me for utterance, I am 
richly paid in being able to do what I deem my highest duty 
to do. (Applause.) 

The President repeated the motion, and a vote of thanks was 
given to Mrs. Rose. 

The Convention adjourned to half-past seven o'clock, p.m. 



FOURTH DAY-EVENING SESSION. 

Sunday^ June 5. 

Pursuant to adjournment, the Convention was called to order, 
at half-past seven o'clock, by the president, Mr, Barker. 

Mr. Barker then stated that the Mayor of Hartford was 
present, and had requested that there should be no applauding 
or hissing of speakers, on account of its disturbing a religious 
assembly in the neighborhood. 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 339 

Mr. W. L. Garrison presented the following resolutions, to 
be added to those laid before the Convention on a former oc- 
casion : 

Resolved — That it would be as absurd as untrue to deny that the 
Bible embodies a large amount of truth — vital, precious, eternal; that 
some of its requirements are just and obligatory ; some of its warnings 
salutary and instructive; some of its promises soul-sustaining and 
glorious ; some of its commands and precepts rational and righteous ; 
some of its views of God and Nature elevating and inspiring; but it is 
not less absurd and untrue to deny that it also contains many fallacious 
contradictions, misconceptions, misrepresentations, fabulous stories, 
incredible assertions, and hurtful errors. Therefore it can not be, as 
a book, the Word of God (which is pure and unchangeable), nor given 
by Divine inspiration, nor the only rule of faith and practice, but as a 
mixture of good and evil, light and darkness, truth and error, is to be 
read with discrimination, and neither accepted nor rejected in the gross, 
but only as the individual understanding and conscience shall deter- 
mine the character of its multifarious and conflicting contents. 

Resolved — That the history of the Bible, from century to century, 
abundantly proves, not only that the interpretations of its letter and 
spirit by its recognized expounders have been fiercely conflictive and 
numberless, but that they have been such only as the age would toler- 
ate, and always in accordance with the despotic spirit of the times, 
whether religious or political ; that any other interpretations thereof, 
by the individual soul, have been denounced as heretical, or punished 
as blasphemous or revolutionary ; that all forms of government — auto- 
cratic, monarchical, military, and republican — have alike found their 
sanction and support in its pages, as at this day; hence, that to be a 
believer in its authority has been, and still is, simply to be with the 
majority and to take the side of the strongest. 

Resolved — That a profession of faith in the Bible, as a holy book, i3 
no better evidence of moral worth or true piety, in Christendom, than 
is a profession of faith in the sacredness of the Koran in Asia, because, 
in both cases, it is to conform to public opinion, or to bow to the scep- 
ter of ecclesiastical domination ; and not to do so is to excite malignant 
persecution, and bring the reputation, safety, and interest of the dis- 
senter into imminent peril. 

The reading of Mr. Garrison's resolutions being attended 
with stamping and hissing, 
Rev. Mr. Stores said, that he hoped the congregation would 



340 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

regard the reasonable request of the Mayor, and that there 
would be no more stamping nor hissing. If the request has 
been understood (said he), it is not veiy creditable to human 
nature to continue to perpetrate the outrage. 

Mayor JIammersly then made some very excellent remarks 
as to the impropriety of disturbing an assemblage on any occa- 
sion. If there could be any propriety in it at any time, he 
thought that the sacredness of the day ought to restrain all bois- 
terousness in which any might be disposed to indulge. 

Rev. Mr. Stores then made the following speech : I need 
not again state the position I occupy. It is possible that some 
of my friends on the opposite side may think that 1 grant them 
all they contend for. I have not contended that every word 
in the Bible is inspired ; I have only contended that it contains 
a history of revelations in certain ages, made by certain instru- 
ments, which God has employed ; and a history of certain facts 
and transactions which were connected with those ages in which 
the revelations were made. I shall go perhaps a step further, 
for I have hinted at it before — that no man is called upon to 
receive as a revelation that which plainly and palpably contra- 
dicts right reason. If, therefore, I was convinced that there 
were doctrines in this Bible, claiming to be inspired of God, 
that contradicted my sense of what was right, when weighed 
in the balance of right reason, I would not feel myself bound 
to receive them as a revelation from God ; because the God 
of this same Bible says, " Come, now, let us reason together." 
He appeals to our reason, and that very appeal imports that 
he has nothing to say that will shock right reason. I feel that 
my friends on the opposite side of the question understand me. 
I do feel for the position, condition, and situation of many in- 
telligent friends on the other side, who, loving and appreciating 
virtue, reject the Bible, as they suppose, though, in fact, they re- 
ject the traditions of men and the corruptions of theologians. 
They suppose, indeed, that the Bible teaches certain doctrines 
which shock their reason j and they reject the Bible suppos- 



HAKTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 34:1 

ing that these doctrines are contained in it ; and if they really 
think so, I can not blame them for rejecting it. I do not know 
how they could feel otherwise than they do while they suppose 
that book contains some of the doctrines attributed to it by 
theologians. 

The most horrible and shocking of all doctrines the last 
speaker on this stand referred to, and therefore I feel called upon 
to I'efer to it myself in my remarks this evening. That speaker 
came forward with the declaration, that God at the outset 
threatened us — Adam's posterity — not only with pain here, 
but an eternity of woe and suffering beyond this life. I deny 
that the Bible teaches any such doctrine, or that such a threat 
is made by Jehovah to our first parents. 

Mrs. E. L. Rose — I believe that I did not say that God 
threatened our first parents with penalties here and hereafter. 
I have made no such allusions to hereafter at all. I only said 
that the Bible said that God placed them in the garden with 
the tree of knowledge, having so organized them that they 
should not be able to resist the temptation ; and also creating 
the serpent to tempt Eve ; and Eve partook of it, and gave it 
to Adam, and the Lord knowing that they could not resist, 
pronounced judgment not only on them, but upon all future 
generations. I made no allusion to a hereafter ; but I said that 
according to the literal sense of the terms in the Bible, the 
Lord pronounced judgment first on Eve, from her to go down 
to her daughters — and on Adam, through him to go down to 
his sons. 

Rev. Mr. Stores — I misunderstood her then, but she did 
say that the Bible taught the doctrine of eternal misery. With 
that assumption I take issue. I deny it. The Bible teaches 
no such doctrine — either in the Old or New Testament. I ad- 
mit that theologians, professing to understand what the Bible 
teaches, have taught such doctrines ; and she may have sup- 
posed that theologians ought to know whether the Bible taught 
it or not. But theologians may, in these last days, be as 



342 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

mistaken in regard to these things as other men. I take 
the position that there is not a solitary expression in the 
Bible that countenances the theological notions of hell. What 
is the theological notion of hell 1 I will sum it up from the 
catechism. It is, that there is a dark, bottomless pit, full of 
fire and brimstone, where the wicked drink in eternal, unmiti- 
gated torture — torture continually increasing, and without 
end. That is the theological notion of hell ; and if the last 
speaker really supposes that the Bible teaches such a doctrine, 
I can not blame her for rejecting the Bible. She says that 
the Bible does teach it; and what text does she quote to 
prove it ? She could not tell us exactly ; but I will tell you 
that the first text referred to by her is found in Mark ix. 43, 
and it relates to the expression by our Lord, " If thy hand 
offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life 
maimed, than, having two hands, to go into hell, into the fire 
that shall never be quenched," etc. 

Mrs. Rose — Will the gentleman read this passage (point 
ing to Matt. xxv. 46) 1 He says that I charge that the Bible 
promulgates the idea of hell ; and he says that there is no pas- 
sage that teaches such a doctrine. 

Eev. Mr. Stores — 1 h»ve said that the Bible does not teach 
the theological hell ; and I repeat that there is not a text in 
the Bible that teaches the theological hell. 

Mrs. E. L. Rose — I spoke against the Bible hell, and not 
against the theological hell. Read the passage. Are you 
afraid to read your o\y\\ book *? 

Rev. Mr. Storrs — No ; I will attend to that passage in due 
time. The text which the lady quoted this afternoon — or the 
woman — for that is the most respectful term after all. 

[Mrs. Rose thanked the speaker for the use of the term ; 
she thought it the best term.] 

I have referred to the text where it says, " If thy hand offend 
thee, cut it off; it is better to enter into life maimed, than, 
having two hands, to go into hell," etc. This was the text 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 343 

i"nainly used by the speaker this afternoon, in proof that the 
Bible taught a hell of endless torments. I maintain that no 
such doctrine is taught by this declaration as she has assumed. 
To settle this point, we want to get a clear and scriptural 
explanation of the term " hell ;" and I wish the congregation 
to mark distinctly that the text says, " It is better to enter into 
life halt, or maimed, than to be cast into hell." The very ex- 
pression tells you that life is what is to be lost if the person 
does not pursue a certain course, and not endless torment to 
be endured. Now there are in the New Testament three 
words that are translated in our language " hell :*' Gehenna, 
Hades^ and Tartaros ; the latter occurring but once, and that 
in the Second Epistle of Peter, 2d chapter, 4th verse. The 
term " Gehenna^'' occurs twelve times in the New Testament. 
The term " Hades'''' occurs eleven times, and ten times out of 
the eleven is translated " hell," and once, in 1 Cor. xv. 55, is 
translated "grave." The term ^'' Gehenna^'' and the term 
^^Hades,^^ in the original, have entirely different significations, 
as every one knows who knows any thing about the original. 
But we are not, on this account, to throw any blame on the 
Bible ; the blame lies on the translators ! The translation is 
not inspiration. (Cries of hear, hear.) It is the work of 
fallible, erring men, and in no place erring more than in trans- 
lating ^a^es, "hell." 

In the Old Testament (Hebrew), the only term that is trans- 
lated " hell," is Sheol^ whit^h occurs sixty times, and thirty- 
one times out of sixty it is translated " hell." It has precisely 
the meaning of Hades, in the New Testament ; and yet thirty- 
one times in the Old Testament it has been translated " hell," 
and at other times " grave," etc., according to the judgment 
of the translators. 

My time is so limited, of course, that I have to take but a 
mere glance at this subject. The term Hades does not occur 
in the text quoted this afternoon, but the term Gehenna. The 
translators might better have left it untranslated. We will 



34:4: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

give you an explanation of it, as given in " The Polymicrian 
Greek Lexicon," by Greenfield. " Gehenna, properly the valley 
of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem ; 07ice celebrated for the horrid 
worship of Moloch, and afterward polluted with every species 
of filth, as well as the carcasses of animals, and dead bodies of 
malefactors ; to consume which, in order to avert the pestilence 
which such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires 
were kept burning.'''' 

The term Gehenna is compounded of the words, Ge, a val- 
ley, and Hinnom, a man's name. Dr. George Campbell, an 
eminent divine — and orthodox, by the way — tells you that the 
term Gehenna never occurs in the Greek translation of the 
Old Testament, nor in any classic author in the world. Then 
we are shut up to the use of the term among the Jews. What 
did it mean among the Jews ? Place yourself one moment 
in Jerusalem, where Jesus stood ; look outside of that city, 
and see the Valley of Hinnom, Gehenna. That valley, in the 
days of the ministration of Jesus, was the receptacle of the 
filth of the city, carcasses of dead animals, and the bodies of 
malefactors. What purpose did it serve? Was it designed 
to preserve and keep in existence every thing cast into it? 
Every one knows that whatever was cast into that Gehenna, 
was cast in there to be made an end of. When the Saviour 
says, " It is better to enter into life maimed, than to be cast 
into hell" {^Gehenna), he only uses an expression equivalent 
to saying, " It is better for you to possess life, to continue in 
being, by losing one hand or one eye in the present time, than 
to be totally destroyed at last for your sins." The term, then, 
in the text, imports a total or entire destruction, and not pres- 
ervation, under any circumstances. It has no such signifi- 
cation as theologians put upon it. 

The idea that the term unquenchable fire imports a fire 
"never to go out," or that shall " burn eternally," it is easy 
to show, by its use among the Jewish prophets, has no such 
meaning, but simply imports utter destruction that can not be 



HAKTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 345 

resisted. And such is its common-sense meaning always. A 
gentleman's house is on fire, and the firemen hasten to his 
assistance ; he says, " Effort is useless, it is unquenchable.'''* 
Does he mean the fire will burn eternally, or simply that the 
house will be totally destroyed^ If the fire could be quenched, 
some part of the house might be preserved ; but it is un- 
quenchable, and therefore total destruction is certain. Any 
school-boy knows that is the common-sense meaning of the 
term, however theologians may pervert it. The text, then, 
gives no support to the notion of the " theological hell," or 
endless torments. 

If the term Hades^ so often translated " hell," had been 
uniformly translated, we never would have the reason and 
common sense shocked by the doctrine of endless torture. No, 
never. Why do the translators sometimes translate, in the 
Old Testament, the term Sheol, "hell," and sometimes 
" grave f I will compare two texts — one found in the Old 
Testament, where the term Sheol occurs, and one in the New 
Testament, where the term Hades is used as the proper cor- 
respondent of the term Sheol. In Psalm xvi. 10, it is said 
of the Messiah, " For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" 
(the original is sheol), " neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One 
to see corruption." In Acts ii. 31, Peter, speaking of David, 
says, "Hfe seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of 
Christ, that his soul was not left in hell" {Hades, not Gehenna), 
an entirely different word, and having an entirely different 
meaning ; and yet our translators have translated it the same 
as though it were Gehenna. We have shown that the terms 
Sheol and Hades are precisely of the same import. Now, 
when the word Sheol is so often translated " the grave," why 
should they not translate the term Hades in the same manner ? 
They did not do so. because they believed in the natural im- 
mortality of the soul ; and if they had translated, " thou wilt 
not leave my soul in the grave," they would say that Christ's 
soul died, as it did. " What, Christ's soul died !" Yes, sir, 

15* 



34:6 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

Christ's soul died. "You mean Christ's body?" No, sir; 
whatever constituted Christ went into the grave and died; 
and had the translators been faithful in translating here, we 
should never have heard of Christ's going to the theological 
hell. Rather than give up the doctrine of the immortality of 
the soul, they would send Christ to hell! Yes, to a hell of 
endless torments. But, unfortunately for their theory, he got 
out of it, and so others may. The fact is, Sheol and Hades 
never mean a place of suffering. The terms signify " covered,'' 
" out of sight," and are used in the Scriptures almost uniformly 
to signify the state of the dead — a state which is hidden from 
our view — and this the testimony of the Bible clearly con- 
firms. It says, Eccl. ix. 10, that " in Sheol there is no knowl- 
edge," and, consequently, no suffering. [A Voice — Right.] 

I must charge our translators with being warped by the 
doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. In the pas- 
sage 1 Cor. XV. 55, wherein It says, " O grave, where is thy 
victory ?" the original term is hades. Why did they not trans- 
late it " hell" here as they did in every other instance where 
the term occurs? Because if they had done so they would 
have proved that there is to be a victory over hell. In Hosea 
xiii. 14, it says, " I will ransom them from the power of the 
grave ; I will redeem them from death ; O death, I will be thy 
plague ; O grave, I will be thy destruction." Why did they 
not translate the word sheol in this passage " hell" instead of 
" grave?" Because they would not allow the shadow of the 
idea that a soul could be delivered from hell to be taught in 
the translation. The term used here is sheol. " I will redeem 
them from death ; O grave — O sheol — I will be thy destruc- 
tion." Had it been translated hell instead of grave, it would 
have proved that hell is to be destroyed, and consequently all 
the wicked in it delivered or destroyed with it. The fiict is, 
sheol nor hades have never any such sense as theologians at- 
tach to the term hell. The doctrine of eternal torments, or 
the theological hell, then, is not a doctrine of the Bible. 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 34:7 

Now I will refer to the text which the woman pointed me 
to. In this portion of Scripture, Christ is represented as pro- 
nouncing judgment upon the world, and in pronouncing judg- 
ment upon the wicked class he says, " Depart, ye cursed, into 
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" — and, it 
is added, " these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but 
the righteous into life eternal." I have time to make but 
brief remarks. 

It is said that the term which is translated in one part of 
this text " everlasting," and in the other part " eternal," is the 
same. I admit it. You see, then, that the reward of the righteous 
is life eternal. What is the opposite of " life eternal ?" Eternal 
cutting off from life. Now, sir, who shall decide this question % 
Shall some modern theologian, or will we let the Apostle Paul 
decide what is the punishment which Jesus said should be 
eternal % Jesus and Paul are speaking of the same time and 
of the same ininisliment. Compare Matthew xxv. 31 to 46 
with 2 Thess. i. 7 to 10. Saith Jesus, Matt. xxv. 31, " Wlien 
the Son of Man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels 
with him, then," etc. — Paul saith, 2 Thess. 1. 7, " When the 
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty 
angelsj^ etc. Thus it is evident both speak of the same 
period. But what shall happen at that time ? Jesus saith, 
the wicked depart from him into " everlasting fire — into ever- 
lasting punishment," and Paul saith the wicked, at that time, 
" shall be imnished with everlasting destruction^ Thus we 
have an inspired exposition of the punishment Jesus spake of; 
and it is not preservation at all, but destruction. Now, sir, 
this apostolic definition is certainly as good as that of any of 
the modern doctors of divinity. 

The figure of Gehenna, used in the other text (Mark ix. 43), 
is the figure of total destruction, and not a preservation under 
any circumstances; and, besides, the word translated in this 
text (Matthew xxv. 46) punishment, is koalasin ; and our Lord 
never, on another solitary occasion, as recorded, uses that word 



348 PE0CEEDING8 OF THE 

but when he is speaking of torment, in various places in the gos- 
pel and in the book of Revelations, he uses two other words, 
the principal of which is basanois. If he intended eternal tor- 
ments, why did he not say eternal basanois ? Koalasin among 
other significations has that of cutting off ; and its sense here 
is clearly that of cutting off from life, and is eternal. 

Let me illustrate this thought. Most men have it fixed in 
their minds that protracted torture, or pain, is necessarily con- 
nected with punishment ; but I know that idea is without any 
foundation in truth. The highest penalty inflicted by human 
laws upon men is death. Men commit murder, and the highest 
penalty is the deprivation of life. Now, I ask if the taking of 
life is attended with the greatest amount of pain ? Every one 
knows that in the punishment of the gallows, if the individual 
falling upon the rope feels any pain at all, it is not manifested 
at the outside of five minutes. It is not the greatest amount 
of pain that constitutes the punishment. But says one — " There 
is a dreadful feeling in the mind of the man before he is exe- 
cuted. He feels horribly." Is that any part of the penalty ? 
The law-makers never took into consideration these dreadful 
feelings. The penalty is simply that he shall die, they take 
away his life ; they do not even look to any thing that may fol- 
low death, for when the judge pronounces sentence upon the 
criminal, he adds, " May God have mercy on your soul" — that 
is, not hurt you afterward. Now what is the punishment? 
Is it the great pain the man endures, or is it the loss of life ? 
That is the highest punishment known in the law of God — the 
deprivation of life. It may be attended with pain — torment, 
o-r it may not — that does not alter the nature of the punish- 
ment at all. The loss of life, when inflicted for crime, is a pun- 
ishment. Let us further illustrate this. See that man in his 
beautiful dwelling, surrounded by kind friends and in posses- 
sion of every enjoyment and pleasure. Let him be told he 
must die^ and remain dead one year^ would he not regard it as 
a punishment of one year's duration ? Suppose him restored 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 349 

to life at the end of the year, and then be told he must die 
again, and remain dead ten, a hundred, or a thousand years, 
after which life should be restored — would he regard this as a 
punishment ? and of what length, or duration, would the pun- 
ishment be? Of course, ten, a hundred,. or a thousand years 
long. Once more. Suppose this man is to be put to death 
and remain eternally dead, would that not be an " eternal pun- 
ishment?^'' The Scriptures inform us that " The wages of sin 
is death" — and that " The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (see 
Rom. vi. 23, and Ezek. xviii. 4-20) ; and both Jesus and Paul 
declare that is the punishment of sin, and that it is eternal — 
there is no recovery from it. The Bible punishment of hell, 
is to be destroyed — to cease from life, and live no more, eter- 
nally. 

Wm. Lloyd Garrison. — Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that 
this Convention was called together to settle the meaning of 
the term Hades or Gehenna, or to discuss the question whether 
the " finally impenitent" are doomed to annihilation or to ever- 
lasting burnings. The only subject properly under considera- 
tion is as to the plenary inspiration and authority of the Bible ; 
whether that volume contains a mixture of truth and error, 
fact and fiction, light and darkness, or whether it is altogether 
sacred and infallibly true. Now, how has this been met? 
First, in regard to our side of the question. We have given 
a fair and considerate hearing to the opposite side. In the dis- 
cussion, we have treated our opponents with entire decorum 
and proper respect. We have raised no clamor ; we have 
hissed no man ; we have not, in a single instance, disturbed 
the quietude and good order of the meeting, but throughout, 
under great provocation, " in patience have we possessed our 
souls." Those who have stood here to defend the popular 
view of the Bible have been subjected to no rude treatment, 
no boisterous interruption, but they have been listened to with 
exemplary endurance, il not always with deep interest. 



850 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Again : we have not avoided the issue, but have made def- 
inite charges against the book to disprove its infallibility and 
its plenary inspiration. We have endeavored to make out 
our case, by quoting chapter and verse, both from the Old and 
New Testament, and think we have succeeded beyond refuta- 
tion. 

Moreover, the position that we occupy is far from being 
popular. We stand in a minority, in a very small minority, 
in the community. It was some evidence of moral courage, 
therefore, for us to call such a Convention as this, in the very 
heart of old Connecticut, and to invite the whole body of our 
opponents to meet us in debate. The chances were over- 
whelmingly against us, in regard to the order, management, 
and verdict of the meeting. Well, what has been the result ? 
On our side there has been no lack of speakers. W^e have yet 
many here who desire to be heard, and who are able to speak 
to edification, but for whom there will be neither time no-r op- 
portunity. On the other side, where nearly all the public 
speakers of our country find it politic to stand, how many have 
made their appearance on this occasion 1 Strictly speaking, 
but two or three. Two have occupied, and, in the absence of 
others, have claimed the right to occupy, half of the time of 
our four days' meeting. The burden of defense has been rolled 
upon them by those who might have been here, and I think 
ought to have been here, to convince us that there is but one 
side to the question, and that is in favor of the doctrine of 
plenary inspiration. Now, sir, I honor the men referred to for 
coming forward to defend what they believe to be the Word 
of God ; it is to their credit. But I will frankly tell you why, 
in my opinion, they are able to be here. It is because they 
are "without reputation" in the community. I do not say 
this reproachfully — far otherwise. I mean, simply, that they 
do not stand among the popular and well-educated clergy of 
the land, but are self-taught and humble men, with very few 
adherents, on account of their peculiar theological opinions. 



HAKTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 351 

Where are the cultivated, learned, and influential occupants of 
the pulpit, who might bring to the discussion of this subject 
consummate ability, rare exegetical acumen, and profound ar- 
gumentation ? Wherever else they may be, assuredly they 
are not here. 

Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of this Convention there has 
been an article published editorially in the Religious Herald 
of this city ; and I find in it some reasons urged why this Con- 
vention should be allowed to pass unnoticed, on the part of 
those who claim to be " watchmen on the walls of Zion." The 
writer says : 

" Many imagine that when a challenge or invitation to discuss a 
question is sent to any individual or class, he or they must of course 
accept it, or else appear cowardly, betray lack of confidence in the 
truth, or be guilty of neglecting opportunities to do good and prevent 
evil. But this is a wrong view, and perfectly unreasonable, although 
it suits the ends of certain persons to make it current. It is a plain 
dictate of common sense to compare different means of doing good, and 
select the best." 

Now, sir, I admit that it is not positively incumbent on any 
man to come here and discuss with us, or discuss with any 
body, either the Bible question or any other question, unless 
he thinks proper. I concede the right of every clergyman, and 
of every layman, too, to determine where he will go, in what 
he will participate, where he will lift up his voice, or when he 
will be dumb — to determine his own time, place, and theme 
for discussion. I make no charge against any man simply 
because he is not here ; but I hold that this attempt to evade 
the force of our complaint-, in regard to the absence of those 
who profess to be true shepherds of the flock and no hirelings, 
and who claim to be " set for the defense of the gospel" is 
clearly disingenuous. Their absence, I aver, is in consequence 
of a conviction that their dogmas respecting the Bible can not 
be successfully vindicated in a free meeting, on a free plat- 
form, BEFORE THE PEOPLE. (Crlcs of " Hear ! hear!") It is 
not that these men are " found among the missing" here, but 



352 PBOCEEDINGS OF THE 

EVERY WHERE, Oil all occasions where free discussion is allowed, 
and where they must take their chance with the audience, in 
regard to the judgment that may be pronounced. 

The writer of the article alluded to says that " the Bible 
question is settled" — therefore all inquiry and all investigation 
are at an end. That is the dogmatism of Popery ; that is the 
insolence of tyranny ; that is the folly of priestly arrogance. 
How settled — and by whom and for whom settled *? While 
God makes a free mind, nothing is settled, so as to render un- 
lawful or inexpedient further investigation ; but now, as in the 
days of Paul, it is incumbent upon each to " prove all things," 
while " holding fast that which is good." Rather than stultify 
the reasoning faculties, doubt and deny every thing that is af- 
firmed, even that there is a God, until the proof seems conclu- 
give. Begin with the beginning ; take nothing upon tradition 
or authority as absolutely final ; but judge for yourselves, by 
an independent research, and according to your own conscien- 
tious conviction, even if against the world. 

The question of slavery, it is as oracularly declared in other 
quarters, is settled, and all further agitation of it .ought to 
cease. But it is not settled, and it concerns our country most 
fearfully ; for if there be a God — if there be an eternal law — 
if man is made in the divine image, and is not a beast — then 
it is impossible for this nation, prosperous as it now is, strong 
and enterprising as it now is, to persist in trampling man in 
the dust as a mere thing, and hope to escape retributive jus- 
tice. No — it is not a settled question, and therefore the dis- 
cussion must go on. But how have the clergy, as a body, 
behaved toward if? For a score of years the anti-slavery 
platform has been free, and we have constantly invited those, 
who ought not to have waited for an invitation, to stand upon 
it, and show why slavery should be any longer continued in 
the land, and why sentence of death should not be pronounced 
against it. But they have refused to appear, as in every par- 
allel case which has challenged general consideration. There- 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 353 

fore it is that we feel authorized to conclude, that their absence 
from this Convention is another indication of their cowardice, 
through a consciousness of the unsoundness of their position 
as to the Bible. Our arraignment of them does not relate to 
this particular instance, as an isolated fact, but is so compre- 
hensive as to cover their whole official career ; so that the ex- 
cuse of the Herald for their non-attendance here is as dishonest 
as it is worthless. 

The writer of the article in the Herald says : 

" Then, again, there are some things so well settled, and so long de- 
termined, after repeated investigations by the ablest minds, that they 
are not to be brought into debate by every sciolist who pretends to 
doubt them. Suppose two or three foreigners, fresh from Europe, were 
to issue a call for a convention at Hartford to discuss the propriety of 
republican government, must every civilian of distinction rush to the 
appointed place to refute the monarchists ? If three Mormon leaders 
and one or two Turks were to issue a similar call to discuss the ques- 
tion of polygamy, must every man, in favor of a single wife, feel under 
obligation to go in and defend monogamy ? Were the radical non-re- 
sistance men around Boston to hold a convention to investigate the 
claims of civil government, must our governors and judges attend to 
defend their authority ? If not, surely after ages of discussion by tongue 
and pen, and centuries of experiment on every soil and among every 
variety of people, it may well be supposed that Christianity has long 
since proved itself to be divine, and that its professors and ministers 
need feel under no obligation to help furnish an audience and occasion 
for those who wish to vent their pent-up scoffs and blasphemies." 

Without stopping to comment upon the low and venomous 
imputation contained in the closing sentence, let us suppose 
such a meeting were called in this place, in good faith, by 
" two or three foreigners fresh from Europe," and that they 
should give a general invitation to the citizens to be present, 
to discuss the nature of our government — that invitation 
might not be generally heeded, but do you suppose there would 
be general uneasiness, or a high state of popular inflammation, 
in consequence thereof — especially on the strange pretext that 
the question they sought to discuss was settled beyond dispute? 



354 PEOCEEDINGS OF THE 

No. But how has this Convention been spoken of and treated ? 
What is the town- talk in regard to it ? Are there no symp- 
toms of alarm and indignation ? 
Again, the Herald says : 

"If the Bible has triumphed over Bolingbroke, Hume, Gibbon, Vol- 
taire, Kousseau, and the strong-sensed though vulgar Paine, its defend- 
ers need not tremble at Andrew Jackson Davis and his spirit-rapping 
admirers." 

Is that a manly reference, or a contemptuous fling ? I am 
not here to eulogize any man ; but who, among his assailants, 
exhibits in his own person a more beautiful life to the w^orld 
than Andrew Jackson Davis % Who can deny the extraordi- 
nary phenomena attending his mental development % Who 
that really knows him doubts his sincerity, his honesty of pur- 
pose, his extraordinary enlightenment, or really believes that 
he is bent on mischief? And what is this opprobrious refer- 
ence to Hume, and Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, but merely an 
ad captandum appeal to popular prejudice ? What have I to 
do with Hume, Bolingbroke, or Voltaire ? I have yet to read 
the first page that they have written on the subject of divine 
revelation. I am here to utter my own sentiments, and not 
those of any other man — to hold myself responsible for my 
own views, not those of any other individual, whether belong- 
ing to a past age or to the present ; and I ask no man to give me 
his indorsement, as I shall certainly indorse no man. " There 
is no need of trembling," says the Herald. Then why is there 
so much agitation among those who say they have God and 
the Bible with them 1 Why have they, or" their representa- 
tives, lawlessly interrupted the proceedings of this Convention, 
and outraged all the proprieties of the place and the occasion 1 
Even on this "holy day," in the very presence of the Mayor, 
have we not had exhibited the lowest specimens of rowdyism, 
on the part of those who have been trained up in the Sabbath 
schools, and taught to regard the Bible with sacred awe, and 
some of whom are pursuing a course of studies for the minis- 



HARTFORD BIBLE C ON YEN TIOK . 355 

try *? Has it not been found necessary, by the Mayor, again 
and again, to beseech them to behave themselves decently, to 
remember that this is the Sabbath day, to have some regard 
for the rights of a meeting convened for public worship in yon- 
der building, and liable to be interrupted by these disturb- 
ances ? And has he not made his appeals in vain 1 

Last evening there stood on this platform a highly estimable, 
intellectual and gifted woman (Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose), of 
Polish extraction, educated in the Jewish faith, but emanci- 
pated from its yoke of bondage, and also from every sectarian 
fetter — strong in her own mental independence, and true to her 
own conscientious convictions. She presented herself, with 
grace and dignity, before the assembly, and proceeded, with 
consummate mastery of the art of oratory, and in a calm, 
philosophical spirit, to show why she was unable to accept the 
popular views respecting the Bible, and its alleged inspiration ; 
yet throughout her speech she was indecently and constantly 
interrupted, sneered and hooted at, and saluted with opprobri- 
ous epithets, by professed Bible believers. It was not the Rev. 
Mr. Storrs, or the Rev. Mr. Turner, who w^as speaking, and 
who was clamored down by the opposite side, but it was a gifted 
woman, daring to express her own thoughts, in her own lan- 
guage — daring to dissent from the popular creed, and to be true 
to herself — insulted and gagged in the most outrageous man- 
ner — the scene terminating in the sudden extinguishment of 
the gas lights, with a view to the dispersion of the meeting in 
confusion ! Now, of what is such conduct significant 1 

Sir, I am familiar with such manifestations. Twenty years 
of experience have taught me how to discriminate in a case like 
this. The anti-slavery cause, though offering them a free plat- 
form, has never been able to induce its opponents to occupy 
it, and to measure weapons in a fair and manly antagonism ; 
but they have resorted to every evil device, and stirred up all 
the mobocratic elements in the land, to destroy it. It is a 
confession of weakness or guilt ; they can not argue in any 



856 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

other manner. So I am constrained to regard it in the present 
case. 

See how utterly inexcusable is such conduct. We are here 
by constitutional right ; and, therefore, every man claiming to 
revere the constitution is bound to stand by it, especially when 
it recognizes the right of free discussion, for that is a very 
sacred right. He is a bad citizen and a dangerous man who 
comes into a meeting of this kind, where it is as free to him 
as to others, and attempts to put down, by vociferation and 
violence, the man who differs from him in opinion. It is cow- 
ardly and base to substitute for argument the hiss of the 
snake, and for proof the howl of the wolf 

Now, sir, a word directly on the subject before us. This 
discussion, after all, has been mainly upon one side ; for nei- 
ther of our opponents has ventured to contend for the plenary 
inspiration of the Bible. True, they deny that this is the 
question at issue, but they are mistaken. We deny that it is 
an inspired volume, as such — that, as a book, it is the word of 
God — because it contains many things which are absurd, con- 
tradictory, inexplicable, fabulous, and some things which are 
immoral and inhuman. This is our position, and we have re- 
peatedly begged its examination; but in vain. Our friend 
Mr. Storrs, in his last speech, has conceded every thing. He 
does not believe in the doctrine of plenary inspu-ation any 
more than I do. He exercises his liberty as a man to put 
aside whatever he pleases, and to stamp it as false and errone- 
ous, just as I do. Nay, he has gone beyond any of us, in in- 
sisting that the Bible, as translated, is any thing but true to 
the original, as pertaining to the most important doctrines, 
namely, the immortality of the soul and the punishment of the 
wicked. He represented its translators to have been fearfully 
warped, if not intentionally dishonest, by their religious theo- 
ries and preconceived opinions. Now, if they were warped 
in one direction, why may they not have been in another 1 If 
the present English version is essentially defective, how is it 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 357 

"the only rule of faith and practice'?" — for it is this version 
which is under consideration, and the only one that is in the 
hands of the people. Moreover, our friend very frankly de- 
clared, that whatever in the book he found to conflict with 
" right reason," or to do violence to his own understanding, he 
would not hesitate to reject. Here, then, is " the law" that our 
friend has so frequently called for, with such an air of triumph, 
by which the Bible is to be judged. It is right reason on the 
throne — conformity to what the soul apprehends or believes 
to be the truth. Thus, the whole ground that we claim is con- 
ceded to us, and the only difference between us is as to the 
amount of truth embodied in the volume. How much of it 
is falsely translated, or incompatible with justice, or worthy 
of acceptation, every one is to decide for himself. When 
Martin Luther, of glorious memory, stood forth against papal 
Rome, and said the right of private judgment in regard to the 
Scriptures is not to be invaded, he laid the foundation for the 
elevation of the whole human race from spiritual vassalage, 
and subordinated the book to the judgment and conscience. 
But what is of God is not erroneous ; what is sacred is not 
common ; what is greater than the soul, it is not for the soul 
to claim supremacy over it. He, therefore, whp believes in 
the right of private judgment, is thereby precluded from as- 
suming papal inflillibility, and excommunicating his brother as 
a heretic, because he differs from him in his interpretation or 
his estimate of the Bible. It is not for him to call me an 
" infidel" or a " blasphemer," because I am not prepared to 
accept his views of the book, but to remember his own liabili- 
ty to err, and to believe me to be as sincerely desirous to know 
the truth as himself. When he begins to rail or to proscribe, 
he shows that, if he only had the power, he has the disposi- 
tion to thrust the heretic into a dungeon, or to burn him at the 
stake, as did the persecutors in the olden time — and all for 
" the glory of God and the good of souls." A persecuting 
religion is not of Christ, but of the devil. The invitation, 



858 PROCEEDINaS OF THE 

*' Come, now, let us reason together,, saith the Lord," is indeed 
God-like. He who will not reason, but resorts to brutality or 
sectarian naalevolence, is either a tyrant or a knave. I ap- 
peal to those who have come to this meeting, not to listen with 
candor to what may be advanced, but to create a disturbance, 
whether they can justify their conduct, even in their own eyes. 
They knew, before they came, that it was to be a Convention 
free to all ; they knew, too, that they would, in all probabil 
ity, hear sentiments avowed which would be highly distaste- 
ful to them ; but how can there be free discussion without this 
liability 1 Besides, no one is bound to accept any thing which 
he deems unsound. There might be some excuse for violent 
resistance, if there was an attempt to force down your throats 
what you did not believe to be true ; but you are here, by 
your own choice, with the liberty to receive or reject what 
may be uttered, just as you please, and to retire from the house 
whenever you find it too dull or too uncomfortable to remain. 
What more can you ask or desire 1 Of what have you to com- 
plain ? You are not without opinions which are dear to you. 
But what right have you to entertain and to propagate opin- 
ions? They may be popular or unpopular. Suppose you 
were to call a public meeting for the discussion of a question 
deemed by you equally interesting and important, and in true 
manliness of spirit should invite those who dissented from your 
view to a free participation in the proceedings ; and suppose 
they should come, not to argue, but to break up the meeting 
in the spirit of rowdyism, what would you think of them"? 
Now, " whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye 
even so to them." 

Mr. Chairman, I turn from a digression which has been ex- 
cusable, nay, imperatively called for, by the lawless spirit 
manifested in this Convention. It is important that we all 
clearly comprehend one thing, and that is, that the test of char- 
acter which, in one age of the world, is vital and conclusive, 
is, in a subsequent age, like salt which has lost its savor, worth- 



HAETFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 359 

less, and, therefore, it is fatuity to cling to it as fundamentally 
important after it is worn out. For example : eighteen hun- 
dred years ago, the question, " Do you believe in Jesus of 
Nazareth as the Messiah 1" was a test question to the Jewish 
nation. It proved all classes, from the chief priests, scribes, 
and pharisees, to the rabble, as the answer was given ; because 
whoever answered in the affirmative, and became his adherent, 
did so at the certainty of being regarded as the offscouring of 
all things, and putting even his life in peril. But of what 
value is that question now, in our country, or in any part of 
Christendom, as a test of character ? None. Then, it had a 
definite meaning and a redeeming power ; now, nothing is 
more indefinite, nothing more powerless. It means any thing, 
every thing, nothing. Then, affirmatively answered, it cost 
much ; now, it is a good worldly speculation. The Christ now 
recognized and accepted by Christendom is not the Christ 
who bore the cross, and was crucified between two thieves 
eighteen centuries ago. No, sir ; he is a very different person- 
age. Instead of being buffeted, outlawed, rejected by the ru- 
lers and abhorred by the priests, he is exalted to the skies, 
— yea, evangelically deified. All that is proud, wealthy, am- 
bitious, politic, and reputable — scribes, pharisees. priests, law- 
yers, judges, governors, presidents, emperors — are foremost to 
declare their belief in Christ. It is a popular faith. What 
does it indicate as to love of God or regard for man 1 Noth 
ing. 

Sir, let me give an illustration or two. If an Italian should 
come here from Rome, I would not give a farthing to know 
whether he reverenced Christ. I would not care to ask him 
the question ; because I should be certain that the chances of 
getting an affirmative answer would be as ninety-nine out of 
a hundred, accompanied with sundry genuflections of the 
body, in token of the profoundest respect. But what would 
it prove "? Would it be any evidence of piety 1 Not in the 
least degree. For no where in the world is Christ popularly 



SCO PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

SO honored and revered as at Rome. His image is seen every, 
where, painted on canvas, sculptured in marble, erected by 
the wayside ; and to it the multitude are continually kneeling, 
with Pope Pius (destitute of all piety) and the cardinals at 
their head. In spite of all this homage, the Protestant church 
and clergy do not hesitate to declare that the head-quarters of 
Antichrist is Rome. Therefore I said, I would not ask him 
the question I have stated. If I wished to know whether he 
possessed any true manhood, love of liberty, and readiness of 
soul to espouse the cause of bleeding humanity — whether he 
was a man of principle or of expediency, self-sacrificing or 
time-serving, a brave man or a coward — I would ask him, not 
what he thought of Christ, but what he thought, in Rome, of 
Mazzini and the cause of Italian liberty. (Applause.) As he 
should answer that question, so should 1 know how to esti- 
mate him. 

So, if an Austrian should visit Boston, I would not care to 
inquire, as a test of character, how he regarded the Christian 
Church ; for, if I should make the inquiry, he would doubtless 
tell me that he had the greatest respect for that church, and 
was himself a member of it. So is the Emperor of Austria ; 
but then it is the Christian Church which goes for the Emperor 
of Austria ! (Laughter and applause.) 1 would ask him, 
" What did you say and do when the struggle was going on 
between Austria and Hungary — when the Hungarians were 
striking home for liberty — and on which side were your sym- 
pathies and good wishes?" (Applause.) According to his 
reply would be my appreciation of the man. 

How much did it avail the Jews to say, " We have Abra- 
ham for our father ?" Or how much of real piety did it indi- 
cate when they declared, " If we had been in the days of our 
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the 
blood of the prophets" — pointing to the tombs which they had 
builded and the sepulchers they had garnished, as evidences 
of their religious veneration for the memories of the martyred 



HAETFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 861 

dead. The scathing reply of Jesus was, " Ye serpents, ye 
generation of vipers! fill ye up the measure of your fathers !" 
So, of what value in Christendom is the popular recognition of 
Jesus as the Christ? To what does it amount that, every- 
where, the most profound homage is paid to him, and his 
"praise is in all the churches?" The boast, whether at Rome 
or at Hartford, " We have Jesus for our Saviour," is as empty 
as was that of the Jews in Jerusalem, " We have Abraham 
for our father," 

*« Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. 
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side : 
Some great cause — God's new Messiah — offering each the bloom 

or blight, 
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right. 
And the choice goes hy forever ^twixt that darkness and that lightJ** 

Thus every test, however searching and infallible at any 
one period, among any people, becomes powerless and grows 
obsolete in time. Even in the same age, the test, which, in 
one section of Christendom, might unmask every face and re- 
veal every heart, in another section would be without adapta- 
tion or efficiency. Here is the evidence. In America, the 
anti-slavery cause is the probe which has the most deeply 
penetrated to the core of our national corruption — the most 
vital test of love to God and love to man. God has lifted up 
the poor slave from his depth of degradation, and, saturated 
with his blood and with his chains around him, has taken him 
through the length and breadth of the land, presenting him to 
every religious sect, knocking at the door of every church, 
appealing to every pulpit, testing every party, summoning 
every household, and asking them one and all, " Is he not your 
brother?" All masks have been thrown off. The liberation 
of the slave has been as searching a test to this nation as the ad- 
vent of Jesus was to the Jews eighteen hundred years ago ; 
only the crucifixion of the latter did not manifest so deep de- 

16 



S63 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

jpravity as the enslavement of the former. " It shall be more 
tolerable, in the day of judgment," for those who cried, "Re- 
lease not this man, but Barabbas," than for our " Christian" 
traffickers in human flesh. 

Now, take this same test over to England, and you will at 
once discover how little vitality it possesses ; for, from Land's 
End to John O'Groat's House, slavery is regarded as an ac- 
cursed system, and the stronger the denunciation of it, the 
more tumultuous will be the applause. But what does all 
this prove as to a willingness to suifer for righteousness' sake, 
to "endure the cross and despise the shame," on the part of 
those who cry out against American oppression 1 Thank God 
for the testimonies which are thickening on that subject, and 
coming over to us by almost every conveyance ! They are 
in accordance with unperverted humanity, and evince a most 
friendly spirit. But remember that the people of England 
have not been corrupted by the immediate presence of slav- 
ery, and have no interest, real or imaginary, near or remote, 
in its continuance. With us, it has had a growth of more 
than two centuries, till it has obtained universal mastery and 
spread universal corruption, rendering it extremely difficult 
and dangerous to grapple with it, and requiring the most sub- 
lime appreciation of principle and the most absolute reliance 
on the promises of God in the struggle for its eternal over- 
throw. Still further, remember that Prince Albert is an abo- 
litionist ; Queen Victoria is an abolitionist ; the most wealthy 
and respectable people are abolitionists ; every body, pop- 
ularly speaking, on that side of the Atlantic, is an aboli- 
tionist — i. e., they are all agreed in the sentiment, that the 
existence of slavery in this republic is to our shame and con- 
demnation — and assuredly they are right. Now, in every 
part of the world, it is so easy to go with the great majority 
— to say just what every body else is saying — to agree with 
all that is reputable and exalted ! As my words may go 
over to England from this Convention, I wish to be undpr. 



HARTFOED BIBLE CONVENTION. 363 

stood as not speaking reproachfully, nor lacking in grateful 
appreciation of what is doing abroad, but only as making a 
clear moral discrimination, when I say that, of a thousand men 
and women who might cheerfully put their names to an anti- 
slavery address in England, more than nine tenths, if they 
should come over here to take up their abode, would, in all 
probability, bow the knee to the Moloch of slavery almost as 
soon as they touched our soil, and be unwilling to be identi- 
fied with the uncompromising abolitionists. This remark is 
predicated on the experience we have had in these matters du- 
ring the last twenty years, in regard to English delegates, 
tourists, and sojourners of every grade. They did not know 
themselves until they came here — for what is a test here, 
is none on the other side of the Atlantic. Yet there are those, 
both men and women, in England, who would unflinchingly 
" stand fire" among us ; who are governed by inflexible prin- 
ciple ; who, whether at home or abroad, are ready to sacrifice 
and be sacrificed for the good of others ; but the number of 
such, in every land, is lamentably small. 

If there has ever been a time when it was a perilous thing 
to acknowledge the sacred character of the Bible, that time 
has passed away. The cross is now to be found in an oppo- 
site direction. He is the victim of persecution who ventures 
to question the infallibility of the book. If a man wishes to 
advance his own selfish ends, let him affect the greatest regard 
for the volume — let him evince a pious horror whenever he 
hears its plenary inspiration doubted — and he will play a poli- 
tic part. Some other test is needed, therefore, to reveal the 
character of the man and the spirit of the age. 

" But," says one, " it is nevertheless true that the Bible is 
the word of God." I ask him how he knows it. He replies, 
t' I have carefully examined it, and it commends itself to my 
conscience and judgment as such." Very well ; he may be 
right, and he may also be mistaken. I, too, will examine it, 
and decide for myself. " But the most eminent scholars, di- 



364 PEOGEEDINGS OF THE 

vines, and commentators affirm the same thing." Well, are 
they not all fallible men, all liable to err 1 Am I to surrender 
my judgment to theirs, and take their ipse dixit as final ? Or 
am I not free to test its cJaims, precisely as I would any other 
book, and reject whatever I may regard as fabulous or un- 
true ? Here, for instance, is the Sermon on the Mount, at- 
tributed to Jesus. There are those who contend, perhaps some 
who believe, that such a person never existed — what then ? 
In that sermon I find this injunction : " Whosoever shall 
smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." 
Now I ask, am I bound to obey it because it is ascribed to 
Jesus, or because he actually gave iti No — it must be right 
and best, in the nature of things, or it ceases to be obligatory. 
It matters not from whose lips it came ; if compliance with it, 
not from cowardice, not superstitiously, but in a brave and an 
enlightened spirit, tends to purify the heart and to subdue evil, 
then it is of God, and can not be set aside with impunity, 
[Mr. Garrison here illustrated the efficacy of the non-resist- 
ance principle, by its practical adoption, and concluded as fol- 
lows :] — 

One of my charges against the clergy is, that, with rare ex- 
ceptions, they do not encourage free inquiry, nor warn their 
hearers to beware how they pin their faith on any man's 
sleeve ; but they exact a blind reverence for the past, unques- 
tioning submission to what is established, and rigid conform- 
ity to a lifeless creed. Professing to revere Christ, and Paul, 
and Luther, and the noble company of martyrs, for daring to 
transcend the ideas and practices of their age, with the cross 
and the stake full in view, they seem to regard it as " the end 
of the law for righteousness" to pay homage to the sainted 
dead, but dare not go one step in advance of public sentiment, 
and are ever ready to raise the malignant cry of "infidel" 
against every one who refuses to be either hoodwinked or fet- 
tered by ghostly authority. 

In conclusion, allow me to add, that I have been highly 



HAETFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 365 

gratified to perceive so miich intelligence, manliness, self-re- 
spect, and dignity on the part of those who constitute the 
Convention. We have not come together in vain : a quick- 
ening influence will go out from this meeting that will be 
widely felt, and an example of manly freedom has been set 
that will be imitated in other sections, to the furtherance of 
the great work of human redemption from the power of priest- 
craft, the reign of superstition, and the guilt of sin. 

[Notwithstanding the pointedness and cutting character of 
many of the remarks of Mr. Garrison, addressed more par- 
ticularly to the turbulent, they were listened to with marked 
attention throughout, demonstrations of any kind being but 
very few.] — Rep. 

Eev. Mr. Turner then said : It is due to the side of the 
Bible that I should very briefly review some of the positions 
taken in the discussion. (Applause — clapping of hands.) I 
suppose now, Mr. Chairman, if I were to turn the table, and say 
that now we have the clapping of those who take sides against 
the Bible, you would think me unkind. It was not the Bible, 
nor the taking the side of the Bible, that made the people clap 
and hiss last evening ; but it was remarks in reference to the 
Bible. (Applause.) Now, beloved friends, please be quiet, 
and let me address 'you a few moments. I was going to say 
that the position of the argument thus far was not clearly 
and distinctly stated in all its features by my friend Garri- 
son. It was stated that we had occupied one half of the time. 
This, Mr. Chairman, is a mistake. We expected half of the 
time, but have not had it. We have not exceeded more than 
one third of the time of the sessions of this Convention. 
Such has been Xh^fact; but I do not enter it as a complaint ; 
only as a correction. So far as we have had opportunity, we 
have been perfectly satisfied. We have had an opportunity 
to speak, governed by all the conditions under which we have 



366 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

spoken ; and I have felt all the while that we could afford to be 
very generous. 

We are conscious that the Bible is what we have attempted 
to have it to be, the word of God. We have been accused of 
avoiding the main question, viz., the inspiration of the Bible. 
We have defined what we mean by inspiration. We have 
stated here repeatedly, and have been obliged to do it, that 
we regard the Bible as a record of revelations from God, 
together with the history of the matters-of fact that occurred 
in connection with those revelations. We do not mean to de- 
fend every word of the Bible as divine inspiration. 

We knew that certain portions of the Bible were history, 
and as we have once before said on this stand, we did not 
know but that every body who read the Bible knew it ; and 
if it is fact that there are clergymen who do believe that every 
word of the Bible is inspiration, we do not know them, and 
have- never heard them preach, but we doubt if such a clergy- 
man is to be found. I have a word to say in regard to the order 
of the meeting. The position in which it now stands demands 
of me, as a citizen of Hartford, and as a friend of right, a few 
words. I am, not willing, under existing circumstances, that a 
charge should be three times repeated from this stand, that 
the friends of the Bible have disturbed this Convention, and 
leave that charge unrebuked. (Applause.) In the estimation 
of our friend Garrison — for he told me so last evening — the 
friends of the Bible produced the disturbance; but, sir, I 
came to this stand last evening, and asked the people to 
be quiet, and they were quiet — (A Voice — That is so.) 
— and it is known that the charges of the woman speaking 
were repeated, that the friends of the Bible made that noise, 
before the noise commenced again ; and allow me to say, al- 
though my friend Garrison seems to feel that he would not 
strike a man if a man were to strike him — I think he would 
now, in his way of striking. (Applause.) I certainly think 
that I never saw a speaker in as many minutes ever take a 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. BQf 

more direct course, or do more in the same time to provoke 
disturbance, than my friend Garrison has this evening. (Ap- 
plause. A Voice — Who is exciting it now 1 Loud applaud- 
ing, stamping, etc.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I would 
gladly avoid all remarks calculated to produce such boisterous 
expressions ; and if persons make such expressions of their 
feelings, whether they are for me or against me, I am not re- 
sponsible ; and I do not make my opponents responsible when 
they have kept to argument, and have not lately outraged the 
audience. 

Mr. Garrison has spoken a great deal concerning the wick- 
edness of professors of religion. I do not know of any per- 
son in the world professing to be a religionist, even though he 
may be wicked himself, that does not say that we have wicked 
professors and professed believers in the Bible ; but, pray, 
what has all that to do with the truthfulness of the Bible ? Is 
the Bible responsible, even if there are a thousand hypocrites 
to one Christian'? Indeed, is it not a truth recorded in that 
Bible, that " strait is the gate and narrow is the way that 
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Hence so 
far from such a fact being against the truthfulness of the 
Bible, it is decidedly in its favor. We will apprise you that 
the Bible has notified the Church that such things would exist, 
and actually marking the state of things that should sur- 
round the Church in each successive dispensation to the end. 
The audience will perceive, that many of the charges preferred 
on the other side are not so much against the Bible, as they 
are against the professed believers in the Bible ; and hence we 
are carried all over the world to look at the professed believ- 
ers of the Bible, even at the rulers of the earth ; and then, 
because they profess to believe in the Bible, and don't live 
the Bible, they would have us understand that the charges 
against the Bible are sustained. Is this so? Is this logical 
argument? Is this proving the Bible untrue ? Why, if you 
draw a right conclusion from the argument of my friend Gar- 



368 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

rison, you will decide with me, for I affirm that his argument 
is in favor of the Bible. These believers that have been re- 
ferred to do not live out a real faith in the Bible, because 
they do not live as the Bible teaches, and therefore the Bible 
remains untouched — a constant, and will be an everlasting, 
rebuke to their lives and professions. 

To show the character of many charges against the Bible, 
I will refer to the one made by the Chairman, that the Bible 
subjugated woman to man. I am not now going into the 
question of woman's rights ; I am only going to say that he 
found a fault in the Bible in this particular, viz., that the New 
Testament gave as the reason why woman should be sub- 
ject to the husband, because that " man was first, and the 
woman was of the man, and not man of the woman." Then 
(said the Chairman), " here you see is a statement contrary to 
known fact," for in every case since the first man, man has 
been of the woman, and not woman of the man. Were it 
not a subject a little too delicate for this occasion, I would ex- 
pose the fallacy of this argument. Is not this statement of 
the Bible, and has it not been an unchanged truth to this time ? 
I only ask you to think — reflect. This statement erf the Bible 
has been introduced as contrary to known fact, and the Bible 
(Charged with falsehood. I simply say that it is a fact from 
the first man till now. " Man is not of the woman, but the 
woman of the man ;" and you have only to think a moment, 
and every one of you will see that man is always first in the 
propagation of his race, hence the woman is always of the 
man. This is one of that kind of obligations which they 
claim they have raised against the Bible, time after time, and 
which they say have not been answered. Now we could an- 
swer all of them as readily as this, if we only had the time 
for it ; it only takes a quarter of a minute to urge an objec- 
tion, and about five or ten minutes to answer one. There 
have indeed been charges made of contradictions in the Bible, 
and of false statements in the Bible, just like the last we have 



HAKTFOKD BIBLE CONVENTION. 369 

ftoticed, and just as easy to explain and show the truthfulness 
of the sayings of the Bible. " But, oh ! the Bible subjects 
woman," and on that account the Bible must be removed out 
of the way, that women may have their rights. (Loud ap- 
plauding and stamping in the gallery.) I have but little ac- 
quaintance in this city, but I believe that this disorder has not 
affected our women very much that is not past endurance. 
(Applause.) 

I feel that our opponents have treated us respectfully in this 
discussion, and in this respect I have no fault to find. I re- 
joice, Mr. Chairman, that I have met this question. (Cries of 
" Hear, hear.") I rejoice that my children shall remember that 
their father met the question, " Is the Bible true ?" in the city 
of Hartford. (Applause.) Yes, sir, if the Bible were to be 
blotted out of the universe to-morrow by a God of some 
kind, I should still rejoice that I met the question (applause), 
not because I have been able to handle the subject as others 
might have done — not that I have the feeling in my breast 
that justice has been done the subject as it might have been done 
in other hands, but, oh, sir, the safeguard of our woi'ld has 
been attacked, and I have had the privilege of a feeble defense 
of the Bible. I leave the arguments that have been made 
on our side of the question with you, kind friends. Carry 
them home with you, and lay them beside the objections urged 
against the book, and lay the Bible before you, read it over 
again and again with care, and you will do as I did the other 
day. 1 love my Bible so well, so much better than before this 
discussion, that I could not refrain from buying me a new one. 
(Loud applause.) 

Mrs. E. L. Rose then said : I do not intend to take up 
any argument. (Stamping of feet, drumming of canes, hol- 
loaing, etc.) Who now makes the disturbance 1 Is it on our 
side of the question % (Renewed stamping of feet, clapping of 
hands, drumming of canes, whistling, and ribald speeches iu 
the gallery.) 

16* 



370 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

Mr. Barker — It is the most infamous proceeding I ever 
knew. (Ironical cheering.) 

Mrs. Rose — I simply wish to justify myself with regard to 
some remarks that have been made. (Hissing, and cries of 
" Down, down.") I was told to-day that the cause of disturb- 
ance last evening was owing to some very irritating language 
I used. (Renewed disturbance in the gallery, and Mrs. Rose, 
in the midst of confusion that rendered it almost impossible for 
persons sitting on the stand even, to hear her, proceeded.) 
Can any one point out any irritating language that I have 
used toward any human being 1 (Furious yells in the gal- 
lery.) As for my views on the Bible, we have here to ex- 
press our honest opinions on the subjects under discus- 
sion. (Hisses, and cries of " Go home.") If so, I had a per- 
fect right to express mine. (Hisses and stamping.) But we 
were told by the last speaker that he restored order last 
evening, and that it remained quiet until I said, and repeated 
it, that the believers in the Bible were the disturbers. (Con- 
tinued disturbance.) Yes, I said so, and say so now. Who 
else were they 1 Those that stand on ray side of the ques- 
tion 1 Surely not. If not they, who else but those who dis 
agreed with our opinions, and disagreeing with our opinions 
against the Bible, were in favor of the Bible — were the sup- 
porters of it ? But I am not here to apologize for any thing 
that I have said; for I believe firmly, sincerely, and truly 
that I have spoken the honest convictions of my heart, and I 
could not be true to myself and my principles to do less. 
With regard to the disturbance, I have no ill feelings toward 
any one on account of it. (Renewed disturbance.) It points 
me always back to the cause. Those who believe, according 
to the Bible, that woman has no right to lift her voice in public in 
her own behalf, or in behalf of humanity, can not act better than 
they do. (Hisses and yells.) Therefore, my friends, wishing 
you farewell, I will carry with me no unpleasant remembrance 
on account of it ; for my creed tells me to have perfect charity 



HARTFORD BIBLE CONVENTION. 371 

for the opinions, feelings, and conduct of man, for he always 
does as well as under the circumstances he is able to do, and 
if I have uttered the truth, I hope it will bear its fruit, and 
giving you better knowledge and kindlier feelings, will lead 
you to act more rational and consistent. (Hisses and ap- 
plause.) 

[The manuscript of Mr. Barker's closing speech has not 
been received ; and in order to avoid further delay in the 
publication of this work, it is deemed necessary to omit it.] 

During the delivery of Mr. Barker's remarks, there was 

much disturbance in the gallery, which was increased by an 

, attempt to arrest some of the disturbers, one of whom was 

secured with much difficulty after his having drawn a dirk 

(as was understood). 

There beginning to be loud cries of " Adjourn, adjourn," 
Mr. Garrison moved that the Convention adjourn, sine die. 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — I wish to say a word or two. (Loud cries 
of '' Out of order," and " Set down.") 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — But I will speak. 

The Mayor — A motion has been made to adjourn, sir, and 
you can not address the meeting. You are out of order, sir. 
(Applause.) 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — If people imagine that I am to be put 
down, all I can say is, that they have mistaken their man. 
(Yells and hisses, and cries of " Put him out.") 

The Mayor — I tell you a motion has been made to adjourn, 
(Applause.) 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — I did not hear it. 

Mr. Garrison — I made it. 

Mr. PiLLSBURY — Very well, then, I will give way. 

After notice being given that preparations would be made 
for holding another Convention in January, 1854, the motion 
of adjournment was seconded, and carried. 



|,ptnbi^. 



Syracuse, Aug. 25, 1853. 
Gentlemex : 

I have the pleasure of but a very slight acquaintance with either of 
you, I do not know what are your opinions respecting the Bible; 
much less have I had any revelation of the motives that have induced 
you to call a Convention at Hartford, to canvass the " origin, authority, 
and influence of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures." But the avowed 
object of this proposed Convention is certainly a very fair and very 
important one ; and your invitation to it — both the one which you have 
published in the newspapers, and the one in manuscript, with which 
you have honored me personally, is candid, dignified, and apparently 
sincere. I know not, therefore, by what rule of common courtesy your 
invitation should be treated with contempt, especially by theologians 
and ministers of religion. Much less can I see with what fairness you 
should be suspected and denounced as enemies of the Word of God, by 
the professed disciples of Him who said, " Why, even of yourselves judge 
ye not what is right ?" — and whose chief apostle enjoined it upon those to 
whom he preached the Gospel, " to prove all things, and hold fast that 
which is good." If, therefore, I were living near Hartford, or were so 
situated that I could afford the time and the expense of so long a journey 
as from this to the place of your meeting, I should attend the Conven- 
tion and do all in my power to bring those I might meet there to what 
I deem right conclusions upon all the subjects of discussion that might 
arise. 

I know of no questions more important than those you have proposed 
in your circular. Here is a book— the Bible — which holds a position 
unlike that occupied by any other book in the world. It is claimed for 
it, that it contains the history, and the substance of the only two dis- 
pensations of religious truth that have ever been sanctioned by God. 
And yet the larger portion of the so-called Christian world — the Ro- 
man Catholics — do not encourage the reading of this book by the peo« 



374 APPENDIX 

pie generally — because they contend that there are doctrines of essen- 
tial importance not contained in the Scriptures." And " even if all 
the doctrines of religion were actually contained in the Bible, still the 
rule of Catholic belief would not be the Scriptures explained by pri- 
vate interpretations, but by the teaching of the apostles and their suc- 
cessors," which successors they claim are the Pope, the Bishops, and 
Priests of the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Protestants, on the contrary, stand up before the world, and 
with one accord proclaim that " the Bible, the Bible only," is their reli- 
gion. They have taken unwearied pains to multiply copies of the sa- 
cred volume, and to put it within the reach of all men. Every person 
who has received any education at all, is expected to know something 
respecting the Bible ; and a copy of it is supposed of course to be in 
every well-ordered family, if not in the possession of every decent 
individual. Portions of these Scriptures are read every Lord's day in all 
Protestant churches ; and all sermons that are preached in them are 
professedly based upon texts taken from this holy book. The Bible 
is generally present on all solemn occasions. It is, in this State, if 
not in yours, carried into courts of law; and the oaths which are ad- 
ministered there are sealed by a kiss imprinted upon some page of this 
book, or (if the swearer be a Catholic) upon the figure of the cross 
stamped on the cover of it. 

Surely the inquiry which you propose is a very reasonable one to 
be put by every intelligent being who is required or expected to pay 
so much deference to a book. What was the oi'igin .' what is the 
authority ^ and what has been the influence of the Jewish and Chris- 
tian Scriptures .' are questions which every one has a right to ask ; and 
they are questions which every minister of the Christian religion 
should be able and ready to answer in a clear and satisfactory man- 
ner — especially the questions respecting the origin and authority of 
these Scriptures ought to be so answered. It has been believed, in 
times past, that every word within the covers of the Bible, from the first 
of Genesis to the last of Revelation (excepting the Apocrypha, where 
that has been inserted between the Old and the New Testaments), was 
infallibe truth J and it has been believed and strenuously insisted on 
as a matter of vital consequence, that every word of the Bible was writ- 
ten at the explicit dictation of God ; so that the men who wrote the dif- 
ferent parts of the volume had little more to do with the compositin of 
what they inscribed, than the pens or styles with which they traced the 
words. This extravagant opinion could not be maintained for various 
reasons, which I need not mention, and is now, I suppose, abandoned 
by most intelligent persons. 



APPENDIX. 375 

• Weil, then, if the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures 
be not true, what is true on this point ? Were they written as other ex- 
cellent books were written , or under some other influence ? If the Spirit 
of God assisted or directed the sacred writers, to what extent were they 
so assisted or directed ? These certainly are fair questions, and ought 
to be answered, as far as possible, to the satisfaction of those who put 
them. 

Again, from what source do we derive our information respecting the 
origin and authorities of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures ? Have 
any of the sacred writers themselves told us what was the kind and 
degree of inspiration under which they wrote ? And then does the 
little that is said in the Bible on the subject of inspiration apply 
equally to every book that we now find included in that collection ? 
Who made that collection ? who determined which of the Jewish and 
Christian Scriptures should be accounted canonical, and which apocry- 
phal ? And are we sure the selection was a perfectly just one ? On 
what gi'ounds was the choice in each case determined ? These certain- 
ly are natural and very proper questions, and can be answered, and 
ought to be answered, to the people, whenever they are asked. 

Then, again, if we have no authoritative description of what is to be 
understood by " inspiration of the Scriptures ;" if we have only the 
declaration that they, or some parts of them, were written by men un- 
der the influence of inspiration, are we not obviously left to learn by 
reading and studying these sacred writings, as best we can, what was 
the kind of inspiration by which the writers were influenced ? And 
will not our views of the nature of inspiration be qualified by what we 
find to be the character of these Scriptures themselves ? If in any 
part of the Bible declarations of theological truth are made that shock 
our reason, or moral precepts are given that outrage our sense of 
right, must we, can we, accept the one, and should we obey the other, 
on the authority of the book itself, in which we find these difficulties ? 
Must we prostrate our reason and our moral sense before the words 
that are inscribed upon these pages, because somewhere in the book 
itself a claim is set up of its inspiration ? Will not the thought come 
naturally and innocently to our minds when so pressed, that the Bible 
is a witness in its own case ? And, then, can we be so sure of the inspi- 
ration of these ancient writings as we are, that it is the inspiration of 
the Almighty that giveth understanding to men ? Once more, can we 
be so sure that the finger of God wrote those laws of Moses which 
disgust and horrify us, as we are that God imparted to us those moral 
sensibilities and intuitions of right by which we are made to revolt at 
cruelty ? These are questions that have arisen, I doubt not, in a great 



376 APPENDIX. 

many good and honest minds. And they deserve to be respectfully 
considered, and candidly answered. Men have a right to know why 
they ought to revere the Bible, and to what extent its words should be 
respected. The Bible will lose nothing by the investigation you pro- 
pose that it ought to retain, I hope the discussions at your Conven- 
tion will be kind, candid, able, thorough. I hope the wisest theologi- 
ans and the best biblical scholars in the land will be there, to help 
bring the Convention to right conclusions. 

For my own part, let me say in conclusion, I have never valued the 
Bible so highly, nor profited so much from the study of it, as since I 
have gotten over the mysterious, superstitious veneration I was taught 
in my childhood to feel for it, and have ventured to examine its con- 
tents really to find out for myself what they are. 

The cosmogony of Moses may or may not comport with the discoveries 
of modern geologists, but these last have ascertained nothing so im- 
portant to be known and believed of all men as that God made the 
world, and all that therein is. 

No better account has ever been given, it seems to me, of the origin 
of sin, than is to be derived from the tradition of the fall of Adam 
rightly interpreted. 

The horrible eflFects of crime upon the individual could not be, never 
have been, more truthfully depicted than in the story of the first 
murderer. 

The desolating moral influence of the licentiousness of great men 
(the sons of God) upon their age, and the fear and loss of confidence 
in the Most High which general social depravity occasions, is admira- 
bly set before us in the tradition of the flood. 

So, too, the histories of the patriarchs, and of many persons inci- 
dentally introduced into the narratives, are full of lessons we need to 
learn. Indeed, I value the Bible as a revelation of human nature, as 
well as a revelation of God, who is to be seen indeed in all his works, 
but most of all in man. 

The government instituted by Moses seems to me vastly superior to 
that of any one of the ancient lawgivers. Though we may be justly 
shocked at some of the provisions, yet, as a whole, the laws of the 
Hebrews were humane and mild compared to those of the cotempo- 
rary nations. 

The book of Job is to me the sublimest poem extant ; and teaches as 
emphatically as it could be taught, that misfortunes and afflictions of 
this life are no indications of the Divine displeasure. 

In the Psalms (whatever must be thought of the grossly inconsist- 
ent and, in some respects, extremely wicked character of David, to 



APPENDIX. 377 

Trhom many of them were attributed) — in the Psalms, we certainly 
may find the choicest expressions of devotional and of penitential feel- 
ing that are extant in any language. 

The prophets I honor as noble, disinterested, self-sacrificing men, 
■who in their day faithfully and fearlessly strove to reform the people. 
In the greatest moral enterprises of aur own time, how many passages 
are quoted from them as most pertinent and most quickening. 

So much for the Old Testament. When we turn to the New, what 
a revelation do we find of God in man — of the perfection of humanity ! 
The example of Jesus Christ, if we would follow it, would redeem us 
from all iniquity. The principles ^f true righteousness which he in- 
culcated are destined, I believe, as they evidently are adapted, to 
establish the kingdom of Heaven upon earth. 

The apostles, although, as subsequent events have shown, they mis- 
apprehended Christ in some respects, were yet worthy followers of 
such a master. Next to Jesus of Nazareth, the world is more indebted 
to Paul and John than to any men that ever lived. 

I close in the words of Edmund Burke : " The Bible is no one sum- 
mary of doctrine regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake 
his way ; it is a most venerable, but most multifarious collection of 
the records of Divine economy — a collection of an infinite variety of 
cosmogony, theology, history, prophecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, 
allegory, legislation, ethics, carried through different books by dif- 
ferent authors, at different ages, for different ends and purposes. It 
is necessary to sort out what was intended for example ; what only as 
narrative ; what to be understood figuratively ; what literally ; where 
one precept is to be controlled and modified by another ; what is used 
directly, and what only as an argumentum ad hominem ; what is tem- 
porary, and what of perpetual obligation ; what appropriated to one 
state and set of men, and what the general duty of all men in all 



I do not know of any other description of the Bible so comprehen- 
sive, discriminating, and just as this. 

With the sincere wish that your Convention may be well attended, 
and the proceedings of it so ordered as to elicit much truth on this 
very important subject, , 

I remain, gentlemen. 

Yours, respectfully, 

SAMUEL J. MAY 



378 APPENDIX 



Worcester, May 26, 1853. 
Messrs. Davis, GREErf & Donaldson : 

Dear Sirs — I thank you for your invitation to attend the Bible Con- 
vention to be held at Hartford. I shall not probably be able to accept 
it, but I wish to express my sympathy with the general object of the 
Convention, although I can not anticipate what precise direction its 
deliberations will take, or what degree of seriousness or dignity they 
will exhibit. 

Every day makes it plainer to me that nothing can save religion in 
this age, unless it can be disentangled from this millstone weight of 
scriptural infallibility. To take any collection of human writings 
belonging to different periods, different authors, and different subjects — 
hymns, histories, and love poems — and erect that collection into an in- 
fallible oracle, would be dangerous to religion in any age, and is 
ruinous in an age so bold and critical as this. And I count him the 
best friend of religion who proclaims boldly to all mankind, what theo- 
logians well know already, that the time is come "to distinguish 
between the divine and human in the sacred writings." I use here 
the words of the most eminent of modern orthodox theologians, 
Neander, whose concession of this point settles the whole question, so 
far as the denomination he represents can settle it, for they have no 
other voice so authoritative as his. 

I am aware that the clergy of this country are by no means unani- 
mous in indorsing this decision ; but I am also aware that very few 
clergymen have investigated the subject sufficiently to entitle their 
opinions to much weight. For instance, I never met with twenty 
ministers who had read Strauss' " Life of Jesus ;" and yet to have 
studied Biblical criticism without having read that book, is like study- 
ing chemistry only in books written before the time of Sir Humphrey 
Davy. 

■ It seems very obvious that to place one single collection of books in 
a position of infallibility which is denied to all the rest of literature, 
is a conclusion demanding the most positive and irresistible evidence 
to sustain it. And yet I am constantly amazed to find how large a 
proportion of clergymen have abstained from even the slightest inde- 
pendent inquiry on that point, and baptized this abstinence', piety, 
and this while so many intelligent laymen are deciding the matter 
for themselves. It does not indeed require theological learning to sug- 
gest the most formidable questions on this subject. Let any one read 
his Bible attentively, and note in the margin the statements which 



APPENDIX. 879 

appear to him either contradictory or incredible, and he mil be astonish- 
ed in a day to see the woi'k his pencil has done. I mean by this to throw 
no especial discredit on the Bible, for I say only what is true of every 
other collection of miscellaneous books of equal antiquity. And human 
reverence has testified for years that no other volume contains an equal- 
ly large proportion of eloquence, of piety, and of wisdom, The differ- 
ence, however, is one of degree, not a difference in kind. 

Permit me to point out a few of the evils that result from what Cole- 
ridge called Bihliolatry or Bibledolatry. 

1. It compels us to refer all moral perplexities to a most uncertain 
tribunal. It is far easier, for instance, to decide whether Slavery, 
War, Polygamy, and the use of Intoxicating Drinks be right or wrong, 
than to decide whether these things be scriptural or unscriptural. 

2. It assumes that God governs the world by occasional expedients, 
not by general laws ; that the human race is not now as near to him 
as in sinful and corrupt Judea ; that the age of inspiration is past, 
and the Inner Light has ceased to shine. 

3. It separates us from sympathy with the piety of other races, which 
should rightly be the greatest stay and comfort of our own. A religious 
man rejoices to find that, all the world over, there are those who fear 
God and work righteousness. He loves to observe that every nation has 
its One Supreme God, no matter how many minor deities be added, 
two or two million ; and that every tribe of man believes in immor- 
tality, in however gross a form. Hfe delights to see that the one essen- 
tial religion, of faith in God and love to man, is an indigenous plant 
on every soil of the earth. He exults to range from the sublime pray- 
ers of the Greek Cleanthes to the beautiful daily petitions of the igno- 
rant Galla-negroes, andfijid in these the same spirit, and almost the 
same language with the loftiest Christian petitions. He is glad to know 
that not a precept of Jesus but finds its parallel in the devotion of those 
who never heard his name. He feels it a privilege to unite with the 
untaught Indian in prayer to the Great Spirit ; and to learn devotion, 
patience, temperance, hospitality, and honesty from the Mohammedan. 
But all this noble sympathy vanishes when any one collection of reli- 
gious books is made an idol, though it be the best of idols, and when 
we narrow down our sympathies to a single line of religious develop- 
ment, even though that line be the noblest. 

4. I will not dwell on the dangerous influence likely to be exerted 
by the cruel suggestions and immoral examples which are to be found 
in the Old Testament, for others will doubtless urge these considera- 
tions. I wish rather to point out a peculiarity of the New Testament 
writers which is only lately beginning to be appreciated. I do not see 



880 APPENDIX. 

how any candid reader of those ■writings can doubt that their authors 
entertained the most sincere and undoubting expectation of the visi- 
ble return of Jesus in the clouds of heaven to judge the earth, during 
that generation — of an immediate resurrection of the saints, and the 
preservation of the disciples, without tasting death, to be caught up in 
the air, and dwell with Jesus. All attempts to explain this as a spir- 
itual return at an indefinite period, appear in the highest degree forced 
and unsatisfactory. And if we suppose Jesus to have been free from 
this delusion, we only transfer the responsibility to his biographers, 
who unequivocally attribute it to him. 

Now it is obvious that such an impression must have gi-eatly modi- 
fied the whole ethical view of the apostles, and we thus understand the 
else inexplicable fact, that they seem to separate in many respects the 
province of religion from the affairs of this world ; ignore the pursuits 
of science, art, literature, and statesmanship ; recognize the practi- 
cal avocations of life only as a necessary evil ; discourage the senti- 
ment of patriotism, the love of freedom, and even the relations of do- 
mestic life. The attempt to apply the simple principles of religion to 
the organizations and pursuits of Bl, permanent state of society, they do 
not appear to have made ; that is left for others to do. The point of 
view from which they looked at things was simply that occupied by 
the believers in the second advent now. We may reverence the noble 
fidelity with which they plead their cause within the very hottest cra- 
ter of persecution, and the grand 'incidental statements which they 
have left of life and duty. But to take a code of morals framed for 
such an immediate emergency, and apply it unchanged to our state of 
society, is as if we should take the code of rules adopted by the passen- 
gers in some burning ship, in order to promote a noble faith and cour- 
age during those last solemn hours, and offer it to our Constitutional 
Convention as the fundamental law of the State of Massachusetts. No 
doubt the same moral principles must be the basis of the temporary 
instrument as of the permanent one, but almost every detail of the ap- 
plication will be different. 

But I will not further presume upon the patience of your Conven- 
tion. The only refuge from these dangers is to speak the absolute 
truth, without hastiness and without fear. The effort which is now be- 
ing made to free ourselves from the mythology of the churches, and 
fall back on a simple religious faith, has no parallel since the days 
when Christianity itself (as being a simpler faith) triumphed over the 
mythologies of the Gentiles, and men at one step outgrew the lovely but 
perishing fancies of an elder world. Like that transition, also, the 
change will be perilous in the process, but noble in its result. 



APPENDIX. 381 

It may be that Conventions for the frank interchange of opinion upon 
this subject may be an important means of resolving the doubt and 
irreligion which the dogma of infallibility creates. And if there be 
any in the community who regard as a sin the mere discussion of the 
claims of the Bible, then that fact is a sufficient illustration of the ex- 
pediency of such a Convention. To protest against bigotry is the first 
step toward its overthrow. 

I am yours, truly, 
THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. 



THE BIBLE. 

C. HAMMOND, MEDIUM. 

The Bible is a record of events, broken and, in many instances, im- 
perfectly related by the historians. Perfect accuracy ought not to be 
expected of any record which gives only a partial account of what has 
transpired. The history of a people who were signalized for their many 
disturbances, both with external foes and internal dissensions, who 
were jealous of distant nations and of each other, and written under 
circumstances of national pride and fear, ought not to be received as 
impartial in its statements or as infallible in its rules. Inspired though 
much of it was by spirits of elevated purity and wisdom, yet the omis- 
sions are so numerous and important, that indefinite argument may be 
had without solving the intricacy of the question. 

As spirits, we are not disposed to engage in a wrangling disputation 
with earth's inhabitants concerning the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments ; but we are disposed to elaborate truth, to enforce by na- 
ture and evidence facts within the range of our wisdom, and thereby 
establish sentiments upon principles which will determine the validity 
of the history. We are sensible of the inharmonies growing out of 
theological controversies, and we design to arrest rather than increase 
the disturbance. 

But, inasmuch as theologians claim that the Bible is a perfect rule 
of faith and practice, and that all facts and relations made from the 
Spirit- world must conform and agree with such standard, it may be 
well for man to inquire why should the Scriptures be made a test of 
other revelations ? Why should theologians claim that the Bible is 
a rule to determine the correctness or incorrectness of other revela- 
tions from Heaven. The Scriptures, so called, do not give any rule by 



38^ APPENDIX, 

which to test any other than its own revelation, nor did any inspired 
writer ever claim that the revelation made by him would be a stand- 
ard by which to test other revelations. They who urge the Scriptures 
as a correct rule of faith and practice should be careful lest they ex- 
ceed their authority in judging of the value of modern revelations. 
To say that the Bible is a standard of faith and practice, and at the 
same time transcend its provisions, is a lamentable commentary upon 
the professions and practices of man. In the absence of all warrant 
to decide what is revealed from Heaven, who can justify the practice 
of condemning what spirits now reveal .' 

The Bible interdicts falsehood as a great evil ; false witnesses as of- 
fenders against law, and yet men professing confidence in this law — this 
rule of faith and practice — violate its requirement whenever they 
charge mediums of revelations with crimes forbidden by that rule, and 
allege that they are impostors, deceivers, necromancers, and controlled 
by evil spirits. The rule is not regarded as one of practice, whenever 
they choose to anathematize a cause they have not the independence to 
investigate. 

Men who practically disregard their own professions, who practi- 
cally deny a perfect rule of faith and practice, complain of others for 
imitating their example. It is truly a misfortune, that they who are 
so defective as to repudiate their rules of faith practically, should pros- 
ecute others for following in their footsteps. They who profess to have 
a rule of faith and practice, a Bible which denies the right to bear 
false witness against another — faithless to such a standard, calumni- 
ate, reproach, and judge mediums as cheats, impostors, knaves, necro- 
mancers, and possessed of the devil, as though fidelity to God was practi* 
cal denial of right, and as though treason to his law was a passport to 
his favor. 

The Bible serves a purpose. It is a test of human inconsistency. 
E,Vad its commands, acknowledge its rules, and then deny, practically, 
what you acknowledge to be a perfect rule of faith and practice. Is 
that fidelity to your profession, fidelity to God, fidelity to man .' Tell 
me, then, what is infidelity ? The Church complain of infidelity ! How 
can that be, unless the Church is blind to its own condition ? Com- 
plain of spirits, because spirits require consistency and harmony be- 
tween faith and practice ! 

The Bible has many excellent rules ; war, injustice, wrong, cruelty, 
revenge, spirits will not approve ; neither do we recommend any har- 
mony, agreement, or practice consonant with injury and ruin. And so 
far as the record of Jewish history affirms a different doctrine, we are 
opposed to it. Whatever violates the well-being of a common family, 
and sets at variance a common fraternity, whether in ancient or mod- 



APPENDIX. 383 

ern history, no matter what may be its claims to authority, we shall 
not respect, nor encourage others to obey. The utility of war, cruelty 
and wi'ong will not weaken the enormity of these evils ; nor do their 
appearance in the record of Jewish history commend them to the fa- 
vorable regard of men who truly love their neighbors as themselves. 
The record which cuts asunder the ties of humanity, desolates homes 
of fathers by encouraging sympathy for war, meets no encouragement 
from us. We say. Expunge all wrong from your faith and practice, 
respect no saying, no law, which violates the harmony of minds, or 
sanctions hate toward any member of the human family. Believe 
not that your salvations depend upon the adoption and practice of 
principles that dishonor parental counsel, and seek to undermine the 
foundation of social order and peace. No matter who may say, Hate fa- 
ther or mother, king or beggar, names are no authority for evils ; they 
change not the principle, because right is right, as truly so when as- 
serted by a wretch as by a saint. Love is love, and no name is author- 
ity to reverse the claims of love — vice is vice, and no name can pos- 
sibly make it otherwise. Were all the angels of this sphere to coun- 
sel for war, cruelty, or wrong, it would not abate one jot or tittle the 
enormity of these evils. Were all the men and women of earth to 
deny the truth which we here reveal, and the practice which we here 
recommend, it would not vary the fact, nor change the truth of nature 
into a lie. Hence neither records ancient or modern, nor faith weak 
or strong, give authority to do wrong, or establish a rule which is in- 
consistent with the welfare of man. All rules which are good need no 
extraneous authority for their support, but those which are evil re- 
quire what we shall not grant — encouragement. 







^Mirtrihge ^ MMb spiritual ICihrnrii. 



Our list of Books embraces all the principal works devoted to Spirit- 
ualism, whether published by ourselves or others, and will comprehend all 
works of value that may be issued hereafter. The reader's attention is 
particularly invited to those named below, all of which may be found at the 
Office of The Shekin'ah and Spiritual Telegraph. The reader will per- 
ceive that the price of each book in the list, and the amount of postage, if 
forwarded by mail, arc annexed. 

The SheMnah, VoL I. 

By S. B. Brittan, Editor, and other writers, is devoted chieay to au Inquiry iuto the 
Spiritual Nature and Eelationa of Man. It ti'eats especially of the Philosophy 
of Vital, Mental, and Spiritual Phenomena, and contains interesting Facts and 
profound Expositions of the Psychical Conditions and Manifestations now attract- 
ing attention in Europe ai^d America. This volume contains, in pai-t, the Editor'^ 
Philosophy of the Soul ; the Interesting Visons of Hon. J. W. Edmonds ; Lives 
and Portraits of Seers and Eminent Spiritualists; Fac-smzTes of Mystical Writ- 
ings, in Foreign and Dead Languages, through E. P. Fowler, etc. Published by 
Partridge and Brittan. Bound in muslin, price $2 50 ; elegantly bound in moroc- 
co, lettered and gilt in a style suitable forn gift book, price S3 00; postage 34 
cents. 

Nature's Divine Revelations, etc. 

By A, J. Davis, the Clairvoyant. Price, $2 00; postage, 43 cents. 
The Great Harmonia, Vol. I. 

The Physician. By A. J. Davis. Price, $1 25 ; postage, 20 cents. 

The Great Harmonia, Vol, II., 

The Teacher. By A. J. Davis. Price, $1 00 ; postage, 19 cents. 

The Great Harmonia, Vol. HI., 

The Seer. By A. J. Davis. Price, $1 00; postage, 19 cent*. 

The Philosophy of Spiritual Intercourse. 

By A. J. Davis. Price, 50 cents ; postage, 9 cents. 



2 PARTRIDGE & BRITTAN'S SFIEITirAL LIBRABY. 

The PMlc^opliy of Special Providences. 

A Vision. By A. J. Davis. Price, 15 cents ; postage, 3 cents. 

Th© Celestial Telegrapli. 

Or, secrets of the Life to Come, reTealeu through Maguetiam ; whereiu the Exial- 
ence, the Form, and the Occupation of the Soul after its Separation from the Body 
are proved by many j'oai'e Experiments, by the means of eight ecstatic Somnambu- 
list3, v.'ho had Eighty perceptions of Thirty-six Deceased Persons of various Con- 
ditions ; a Description of them, their Conversation, etc., with proofs of their Ex- 
istence in the Spiritual World. By L. A. Cahanet. Published by Partridge & 
Brittan. Price, $1 OT ; postage, 19 cents. 

Familiar Spirits. 

And Spiritual Maniiestations ; being a Series of Articles by Dr. Enoch Pond, Pro 
fcssor in the Bangor Theological Seminary, With r\ Reply, by A. Bingham, Esq., 

of" Boston. Price 2o cents ; postage 3 cents. 

Night Side of Nature. 

Ghosts and Ghost Sccrj-. ]ly Catharine Crowe, Price, $1 25 ; postage 20 cents. 

Gregory's Lectures on Animal Hagnetism. 

Price, $1 00 ; postage, 17 cevts. 

The Macrocosm and Microcosm; 

Or, the Universe Without and the Uuiverso Within. By WilUam Fishbough. This 
volume comprehends only the first part, or the Universe Without. Paper, bound, 
price, 50 cents ; muslin, 75 cents ; postage, 12 cent'. 

Arrest, Trial, and Acc^iittal of Abby Warner, 

For Spirit-Rapping. By Dr. .\. Underhill. Price, 12 cents ; postage, 2 cents. 

Ph3rsico-Physiological Researches 

In the Dynamics of Magnetism, Electricity, Ileat, Light, Crystallization, and 
Chemism, in their relations to Vital Force. By Bai-on Charles Von Reichenbach. 
Complete iVcm the German second edition ; with the addition of a Preface and 
Critical Kotes, by John Ashbumer, M.D. ; third American Edition. Published 
by Parti-idgc &. Brittan at the reduced price of $1 CO; postage, 20 cent?. 

Spiritual Experience of Mrs. Lorin L. Piatt, 

Medium. Price, 20 cents : postage, 3 cent?. 

Spirit-Manifestations : 

Being an Exposition of Facts, Principles, etc By Rev. Adlo Balloa. Price, 73 

rents: postage, 11 cents, 

piritual Instructor; 

Containing Facts and the Philosophy of Spiritual Intercourse, Price, 38 cento 

postage, 6 cents. 

The Spiritual Teacher. 

By Spirits of the Sixth Circle. R. P. Ambler, Medium, Pric«, 50 ceatt ; po«t»g^ 
7 cents. 



PARTRIDGE & BRITTAN^S SPIRITUAL LIBRARY. 6 

Light From The Spirit "World. 

Being written by the control of Spirits. Rer. Charles Hammond, Medium. Price, 
75 cents ; postage, 10 cents. 

The Pilgrimage of Thomas Paine. 

Written by the Spirit of lliomas Paine, through C. Hammond, Medium. Paper, 
price, 50 cents ; muslin, 75 cents ; postage, 12 cents. 

Elements of Spiritual Philosophy. 

R. P. Ambler, Medium. Price, 25 c«its ; postage, 4 cents. 

Stiiling's Pneumatology, 

Being a Reply to the Question, What Ought and Ought Not to be Believed or Dis- 
believed concerning Presentiments, Visions, and Apparitions according to Nature, 
Iteason, and Scripture. Translated from the German ; edited by Prof. George 
. Bueh. Published by Partridge & Brittan. Price, 75 cents ; postage, 16 cents. 

Voices from the Spirit-World. 

Isaac Post, Medium. Price, 50 cents ; postage, 10 cents, 

Dr. Esdaile's Natural and Mesmeric Clairvoyance. 

With the Practical Application of Mesmerism in Surgery and Medicine. (English 
edition.) Price, $1 25; postage, 10 cents. 

Also, Mesmerism in India. 

By the same Author. Price, 75 cents ; postage, 1.3 cents. 

Fascination: 

Or, the Philosophy of Charming. By John B. Newman, M.D. Price 40 centa; 

postage, 10 cents. 

Shadow-Land; 

Or, the Seer. By Mrs. E. Oakes Smith. Price, 25 cents ; postage 5 cents. 

Supfc^-al Theology. 

Alleged Spiritual Manifestations. Price, 25 cents ; postage 5 cents. 

Keasages from the Superior State. 

Communicated by John Murray, through J. M. Spear. Price, 50 cents ; postage, 
8 cents. 

Love and Wisdom from the Spirit-World. 

By Jacob Harehman, writing Medium. Price, 60 cents ; postage, 11 cents. 

Seeress of Prevorst. 

A Book of Facts and Revelations concerning the Inner Life of Man and a World 
of Spirits. By Justinus Kerner. New Edition ; published by Partridge & Brit- 
tan. Price, 38 cents ; postage, 6 cents. 

Philosophy of Mysterious Agents. 

Human and Mundane ; or. The Dynamic Laws and Relations of Man. By E. C. 
Rogers. Bound ; price, $1 00 ; postage, 24 cents. 

The Science of the Soul. 

By Haddock. Price, 25 cents ; postage, 5 centc 



4r PAETEmaE & beittan's spieitual libeary. 

Sorcery and M^ic. 

By Wright. Price, 61 00 ; postage, 19 cents. 

The Clairvoyant Family Physician. 

By Mrs. Tuttle. Paper, price 7o cents ; muslin, Si 00 : postage, 10 cects. 

Answers to Seventeen Objections 

Against Spiritual Intercourse. Py John S. Adams. Published by Partridge & 
Brittan. l-jper, price 25 ccnta ; ir.us^in, 33 cents ; postage, 7 cents. 

The Approaching Crisis : 

Being a Ileviev/ of Dr, Bushueu'd reorviit Lectures on Superuataralism. By A. J. 
Davie, Published by Partridge & Brittan. Price, 50 cents ; postigo, 13 cents. 

Practical Instmction in Animal Magnetism. 

Ey J. P. F. Dclcuv?. Pric-, $1 00; postage, IG cc:!t3. 

Spirit-Minstrel. 

A collection of Ninety familiar Tunes ami Hymas, appropriafc to iieetings for 
Spiritual Int;v.cour5e. Piipnr. 23 crntv ; niusiin, .38 cents : postaga, 6 cents. 

Spirit-Voices. 

Dictated by Spirits, for the uee of Circles. By K. C. Henck, Medium. Price, 
paper, 38 cents ; maslii), SOccuts . postage, 6 cent?. 

Buchanan's Journal of Man, 

A Monthly JlagazinCj devoted to Aulhropological Science, by which the Constitu- 
tion of Man is <!( tcrniiiied thrungli Phrenological and Psychological Develop- 
ments. PricC; per aiinunj, i:2 dJ: aiuglo copies, 25 cents ; postage, 3 cents. 

Beecher's Eeport on the Spiritual Manifestations, 

To the Congregational Association cf New York and Brookh-n. Pric«, paper 25 
oouts; muslin, GS cents; postage, 3 and 6 cents. 

The Ministry of As gels Eealized. 

F.y A. E, Ncv.'ton, Boston, rricc VI o..-n!«, post;>go 1 cent. 

Amaranth Blooms. 

A Collection of embodied P't-fical Thouglifs, by Mr.'?. S. S. Smith. Price 6ii cento, 

postage S cen's. 

Reply to a Discourse 

Of Eov. S. "W. Lind, D.D.. Prebideut ^YfcStcrn Baptist Theological Institute, Covings 
lOT, Kentucky, by P. E. Bland, A.M., St. Loni?. Price 15 cc-nfs, postage 2 centa. 

The Harmonial Man: 

Or, Thoughts for the Ago. By Andrcv%' Jacks'-in Da; i«i. Price SO cents, postage C 
I'cniJ. 
Biography of Mrs. Semantha Mettler, 

And an account of the "Won4erful Cures performed by her. By Francia H. Grerti. 
Harmonial Association, publishers. Price, paper 25 cents ; muslin, 8S centa ; poet- 
age, 6 cents. 

PABTR1D€E & BRITTA.Y, Publisher?, 

5io. 300 Broadway, ?few York. 



JUST PUBLISHED BY 

PARTRIDGE AND BRITTAN, 
300 Droad^ay, sUtw Yor&. 



Brittan and Riciimond's Discussion. 

Four hundred pages, octavo. Thi3 work coutaiua twenty-four letters from each of 
the parties above named, embodying a great number of facts and arguments, »ro 
and c'o», designed to illustrate the Spiritual Phenomena of all ages, but especially 
the modern Manifestations. To insure a wide circulation, the work is offered at tho 
low price of $1. 

The Present Age and the Inner Liic ; 

Being a Sequel to Spiritual Intercourse. By A. J. Davis. This is aa elegant book, 
of near 300 pages octavo, illustrated. Price $1, postage 23 cents. 

Discourses from tho Spirit-World, 

Dictated by Stephen Oiin, through Ilev. li. P. Wilson, "Writing Medium. To do 
good is the Golden Pule of the Universe. Tiiis is an interesting volume of some 
'200 pages. Price C3 cent?. 

The Spiritual Telegraph, Vol. I. 

A few copies complete, bound in a substantia! manner— contains the fullest record 
cf tlic facts, etc., of the Spiritual movement that has yet been published. Price $3. 

The Shekinah, Vol. H. 

Embellished with Six Portraits. Edited by S. B. Brittan. The work is elegantly 
printed and bound in muslin, at $1 5\ 

Brittans Eeview of Beecher's Eeport, 

AVherein the conclusions of the latter are carefully examined and te«ted by a com 
parison with his premises and -with the facts. Price 25 cents. 

The Telegraph Papers. 

Volume L, some 400 pages, 12mo., consists of all the more important articles which 
have appeared in the Second Yolumeof the Telegraph, from May to July inelusire 
1S5-3. Price 75 cents. 

Philosophy of the Spirit-World. 

Eev. Charles Hammond, Medium. Price 68 cents, postage 12 centa. 

A. Chart, 

Exhibiting an outline of the Progressive History and approaching Destiny of the 
Race. Bound, or on rollers. By A. J Davis. Price $1 75. 



jur^ ^ ( 5^-tu. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson ParK Drv-e 
CranDerry Township PA 1 6i>^»- 



